ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: A CAMPUS FOR THE FOURTH CENTURY: A MASTER PLAN FOR THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA Name of Degree Candidate: Eric Jack Baker Degree and Year:Master of Architecture, 2004 Thesis Directed by:Professor Brian Kelly School of Architecture This thesis presents a multi-stage master plan for the College of William and Mary in Virginia ? a 310-year-old small public university intimately linked to a historically important colonial town. The thesis seeks to ?heal? damage created by poor post-World War II planning through selective building additions and demolitions, and investigates how and where to appropriately construct new buildings. Demolition and replacement of buildings that are determined not to support the College?s mission are investigated. This thesis explores how campus planning, individual buildings, and detailing combine to give a campus its ?character? and support its academic mission. These investigations culminate with the presentation of a ?New? Campus that exists as an inevitable extension of the old ? and respects the surrounding town to which it is historically bound. A CAMPUS FOR THE FOURTH CENTURY: A MASTER PLAN FOR THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA by Eric Jack Baker Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture 2004 Advisory Committee: Professor Brian Kelly, AIA, Chair Professor Karl Du Puy, AIA Professor Thomas Schumacher, AIA ii DEDICATION To all of the (un)usual suspects: To friends, family and to all those whose support got me through. To my committee for putting up with me. To Jane for getting me to the party and to Kari for seeing me safely home. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables................................................vi List of Figures................................................vii Introduction.................................................1 The Framework.........................................3 The Final Product........................................4 Identification of Precedents................................4 A History of the College.......................................6 Colonial Beginnings......................................6 The City of Williamsburg.................................11 Jefferson and the 18 th Century..............................14 William and Mary Post Revolution..........................18 Infrastructure Problems...................................19 The Civil War..........................................21 Physical Planning in the Tyler Years.........................22 The Return of Planning...................................24 President Chandler and the Rockefeller Years.................27 The 1923 Master Plan....................................28 Analysis and Critical Commentary Concerning the 1923 Plan.....33 The 1961 Master Plan....................................45 Analysis and Commentary Concerning the 1961 Plan...........51 The 1987 Master Plan....................................61 The 2003 Precinct Plan...................................65 Lessons Learned A Graphical Argument in Support of Mixed-Use Zones..........70 A Graphical Argument in Support of Open ?Places?............76 Cross-Campus Comparison of Building Typology and Details........80 Old Campus Academic Buildings............................81 New Campus Academic Buildings...........................82 Old Campus Residence Halls...............................83 New Campus Residence Halls..............................84 Residence Typology at William and Mary.....................85 Old Campus Pathways....................................86 New Campus Pathways....................................87 Old Campus Entrances....................................89 Old Campus Windows....................................91 Residential New Campus Windows and Entrances..............93 Facilities Evaluation...........................................95 Old Campus Sites........................................96 iv The Lodges.............................................98 The Dillard Complex.....................................100 Residential New Campus..................................102 Analysis Conclusion...........................................106 Additional Site Considerations..................................107 Part II ? The Intervention......................................109 The Master Plan.........................................110 General Description and Spatial Organization............111 The Public Place...................................111 The Residential Realm...............................112 Urban Scale...................................112 West Campus Quads..........................112 Zable Stadium Site...........................115 Building Scale.................................117 Faculty Row..................................119 Fraternity Complex.............................121 The Natural Landscape..............................123 Wildflower Refuge.............................123 College Woods................................125 The Circulatory System..............................117 The Transition Zones................................128 The Impact........................................134 Additional Presentation Drawings......................136 Conclusion..................................................141 Appendix A ? Residence Hall Philospohy.........................143 The Traditional Residence Hall.............................143 The Cluster Parti........................................145 The Double-Loaded Apartment.............................146 The Single Unit Residence.................................147 An Alternate Approach...................................149 Appendix B - Building Area on New Campus......................152 Appendix C - Building Area on New Campus......................154 Endnotes....................................................158 Credits......................................................160 Bibliography.................................................161 v LIST OF TABLES Images on the College?s Web Site.................................57 Panoramic Movies on the College?s Web Site.......................57 vi LIST OF FIGURES Original Wren Building Structure.................................7 The Bodleian Plate.............................................8 The Williamson Building at Oxford...............................9 Original Harvard Quadrangle....................................10 Wren Yard...................................................10 Duke of Gloucester Street.......................................11 Original Williamsburg Plot......................................12 The Frenchman?s Map..........................................13 Conjectural Plan of Williamsburg by J. Kornwolf....................14 Governor?s Palace and Jefferson?s Planned Alteration.................15 Palace Green.................................................16 UVA Gournds................................................16 L?Enfant?s Plan for Washington..................................16 The College in 1905............................................22 Campus Zones................................................26 Charles Robinson Rendering of 1923 Master Plan....................28 Buildings on Old Campus.......................................32 President?s House and Blow Memorial Hall.........................34 Current Building Usage on Old Campus............................35 Old Campus Pedestrian Pathways.................................36 Open Spaces and Places.........................................37 Building Relationships on Old Campus.............................38 Five Minute Walking Radii......................................39 Termination of east-west arterial..................................40 Ambiguous Terminations........................................41 Underdeveloped N-S cross-axis...................................43 The Sunken Gardens Site Circa...................................44 1957 Master Plan Study.........................................46 1959 Master Plan Study.........................................47 1961 Master Plan..............................................48 Yates Hall Proposal............................................50 Buildings on New Campus......................................50 Undefined Space Between Morton and Jones Halls...................52 Building Usage on Campus......................................56 Pedestrian Pathways............................................57 Vehicular Circulation...........................................58 Campus Parking...............................................59 Open Spaces and Places.........................................60 1987 Master Plan..............................................61 Brown Hall...................................................63 2003 Precinct Plan.............................................65 2003 Precinct Plan.............................................68 Building Usage as a Percentage of Total Built Structure by Region.......71 Dartmouth Building Usage......................................72 vii Princeton Building Usage.......................................73 UVA Building Usage...........................................74 University of Maryland Building Usage............................75 Land Usage by Region..........................................78 Scale Comparisons.............................................79 Features of Old Campus Academic Buildings........................81 Features of New Campus Academic Buildings.......................82 Features of Old Campus Residential Buildings.......................83 Features of New Campus Residential Buildings......................84 Residence Hall Typology........................................85 Old Campus Pathways..........................................86 New Campus Pathways.........................................87 Pathway Sections..............................................88 Old Campus Entrances..........................................89 Entrance Typology.............................................90 Windows on Old Campus.......................................91 Window Typology on Old Campus................................92 New Campus Entrances and Windows.............................93 New Campus Window Types....................................94 Old Campus Buildings Identified.................................96 The Lodges...................................................98 A Lodge.....................................................99 The Dillard Complex...........................................100 New Campus Residence Halls....................................102 Environmentally Protected Area..................................107 Site Slopes...................................................108 The Master Plan...............................................110 Major Civic Spaces............................................111 West Campus Residence Halls...................................112 Residential Court Elements......................................115 Residence Hall Floor Plates......................................117 Faculty Row..................................................119 Fraternity Complex............................................121 Post-Intervention Building Usage.................................122 Natural Areas.................................................123 Wildflower Refuge Intervention..................................125 College Woods Intervention.....................................126 Existing and Proposed Vehicular Circulation........................131 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Circulation........................132 Circulation Study for Master Plan.................................132 Existing and Proposed Roads Superimposed.........................133 Location of Demolition and New Construction.......................135 Thesis Presentation Drawings....................................136 Thesis Presentation Drawings....................................137 Thesis Presentation Drawings....................................138 Thesis Presentation Drawings....................................139 viii Thesis Presentation Drawings....................................140 Traditional Residence Hall......................................143 Cluster Parti Residence Hall.....................................145 Apartment Parti Residence Hall...................................146 Group House Concept..........................................147 Dormitory Conversion at University of Maryland.....................150 Row House Concept...........................................150 1 INTRODUCTION Located in Williamsburg, Virginia, the College of William and Mary is a small modern university of approximately 5500 undergraduates and 2200 graduate students. While a liberal arts college in feel and appearance, William and Mary not only offers professional degrees in Law and Business Administration but also advanced degrees in numerous fields. Founded in 1693, the College is the second oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. During its 310-year history it has educated three U.S. Presidents (Jefferson, Monroe, and Tyler), numerous signers of the Declaration of Independence (a history that has earned it the nickname ?Alma Mater of a Nation?) and countless leaders in the arts, humanities and sciences. The College and surrounding colonial city are both architecturally significant. In particular, the relationship between the College?s initial buildings and the Colonial Capital symbolizes an important connection between collegiate planning and urban design that was unique at the time of their construction. No educational institution prior to this time exhibited so close a connection (and vice-versa) between town and gown. The buildings of this first complex form the ?Ancient Campus? of the College and are outstanding examples of Georgian architecture. The Ancient Campus, together with the ?Old Campus? (planned and constructed largely in the first decades of the twentieth century), form the ?heart? of the College. These two areas ?are? William and Mary in the 2 minds of those who are closely associated with the school and they are the source from which the College takes its public image. Like many other campuses across the country, the College experienced explosive growth after World War II. This growth, poorly planned and cheaply executed, forms the ?New Campus? of the College. Today these buildings are functionally inadequate and do little to enhance the image of the College; this is a critical issue to the William and Mary community. Today William and Mary is recognized as one of the best universities in America and stands alone as the finest small public university in the country. In recent years, the College has set itself on an ambitious track to become recognized as one of the best universities period (perhaps a public relations task more than an academic endeavor ? as the quality of the students and faculty have long been competitive with those from any university). This thesis investigates the role of architecture and place-making in this mission and strives to present a comprehensive, multi-phase growth plan that addresses post-World War II planning ?mistakes.? In so doing, it provides William and Mary with new facilities for its fourth century development that can hopefully become as much a part of William and Mary?s ?identity? as the Ancient and Old Campus are today. This considerable task is broken down into several complementary components that look at this ?mission? from multiple viewpoints. Based on the assumption that the Ancient and Old Campus are the ?successful? parts of Campus, this thesis first identifies those 3 qualities that make them so, and contrasts them with the qualities of New Campus. These conclusions are used to inform the design phase of this thesis, the framework of which is summarized below. The ?Framework? This thesis will confine new construction to roughly the same net-to-gross area of the ?successful? areas of Campus, and limits the areas involved to the Main Campus and the Dillard Complex. This provides an appropriate scale for the final intervention. Demolition of selected areas that do not contribute to the mission of the College is investigated. This thesis investigates new development from both a chronological perspective and on a scale of severity of intervention. For immediate, short-term goals, open, undeveloped areas that can accommodate new construction are identified, and structures that reinforce the ?character? of William and Mary are proposed. Existing structures that can accept additions are identified; such additions seek to ?heal? damage done in post-World War II construction. Finally, structures that can be demolished with minimal consequences at this stage are identified. For medium-term goals, demolition of existing structures and new construction is considered. The ?long-term? goal of this thesis is to present the Campus Community with a vision of what the College could be? to present a ?New? New Campus that the graduates of 2003 could literally ?come home to? for their 50 th 4 reunion. Such additions should be inevitable extensions of the existing fabric. This stage of the thesis proposes selective demolition and substantial construction on the present ?New Campus? ? particularly the residential section. Design proposals are guided by analysis of precedents ? both of William and Mary?s identified ?peer-group? institutions and of institutions identified as having significant similarities to the College in terms of siting, size and character. The Final Product This thesis will present a Master Plan that combines the chronological steps discussed above and a residential complex on the site to the west of Zable stadium that will be developed in detail. Identification of Precedents: Several institutions are examined in-depth and used as design precedents for this thesis. Some of these institutions have been selected from schools identified as William and Mary?s peers by the College. Others were chosen by the author because of their applicability to the design problem. Primary criteria used for the selection of design precedents were student enrollment, academic excellence, and architecture and campus planning of merit. Dartmouth 5 College and Princeton University are almost identical to William and Mary in terms of enrollment size and are similarly ?old? institutions. While significantly larger, the University of Virginia will be included due to its universal acceptance as perhaps the most architecturally significant university in the country, and due to the fact that the ?heart? of the ?grounds? was designed to a much smaller scale than the UVA of today. One of the central premises of this thesis is that architecture and campus planning are the primary determinants of campus ?character? and that the projected character of an institution is intimately related to its academic excellence (or lack thereof). Design Precedents: Dartmouth College Princeton University University of Virginia University of Maryland, College Park 6 A HISTORY OF THE COLLEGE Colonial Beginnings The first attempt to found a college in the colony of Virginia was brought to an abrupt end by an Indian massacre in the early 1620?s. The second attempt would succeed when James Blair, (a deputy of the Bishop of London in Virginia), and Francis Nicholson, (the colony?s deputy governor) secured a Royal Charter and funds from King William III and Queen Mary the II in 1693 in order to create a place of ?universal study.? 1 Blair spent considerable time in London during the lobbying effort, and there is some evidence that, while still without a site, he engaged in preliminary physical planning of the College. 2 Upon Blair?s return from England, a site between the James and York Rivers named Middle Plantation was chosen. Construction began in 1695 following the acquisition of 330 acres of land, and despite some financial difficulties that required Blair to return to London to request additional funds, the College?s main building (today known as the Sir Christopher Wren Building) was occupied by 1700. While Middle Plantation would shortly become the town of Williamsburg, the College pre-dates the town. At the time of the College?s founding only a parish church (Bruton Parish, 1683) and a few scattered farms and commercial buildings occupied the site. Thus, William and Mary is perhaps the first example of a college founded in a truly rural environment ? an occurrence that would later become common in America. 7 The original building, which was partially destroyed by fire in 1705, is known only through an illustration made by a Swiss traveler in 1702 and a 1699 map which shows an enclosed quadrangle ? of which only an L-shaped portion was completed (fig. 1). Named the Sir Christopher Wren Building in 1931 (figs. 1,2) by the College, the architect responsible for the building has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. The controversy surrounding the issue begins with a 1724 book written by a professor at the College that stated: The Building is beautiful and commodious, being first modeled by Sir Christopher Wren, adapted to the Nature of the Country by the Gentlemen there; and since it was burnt down it has been rebuilt, and nicely contrived, altered and adorned by the ingenious direction of Governor Spotswood, and is not altogether unlike Chelsea Hospital. 3 Figure 1 - The original built structure of the Wren Building shown as a part of the original plan. 8 Figure 2 - "Bodleian Plate" from the Bodleian Library at Oxford University showing an early view of the campus. (Wren Building in center) It is likely that Blair visited Wren?s office while in London, and Wren, as the Surveyor- General of the King?s Works could have been involved in planning a royally chartered institution. The early plan, however, featured an enclosed courtyard, which was known in Wren?s opinion to be undesirable. 4 Changes were made to the original plan when the building was rebuilt following the 1705 fire, and the resultant structure is closer in spirit to Wren?s work and ideals. The exterior proportions were made more Palladian, and during the period from 1705-1730 the building acquired its eastward axial orientation that would tie it to the developing town of Williamsburg. 5 Wren at this time was in his seventies and doing little design work. His direct involvement at this point is questionable, but the building exhibits remarkable similarities to several Wren structures such as the 1671 Williamson Building at Oxford (fig. 3), and has been accepted by the Wren Society. 6 While Wren?s involvement will likely remain the subject of debate, the resulting building demonstrated new thinking about academic structures. Like Wren?s work at Oxford and Cambridge, the building had a strong central emphasis, directional spatial organization, 9 and openness ? features absent from the medieval quadrangles built at colleges in England up until that point. Probably of more importance than the question of Wren?s involvement with the original structure is the College?s construction of two new buildings to the east of the Wren Building. These buildings helped the College respond to the newly laid-out plan of Williamsburg and strengthened the decidedly Baroque nature of the new Duke of Gloucester Street that would form the backbone of the new town. This development symbolizes an important connection between collegiate planning and urban design that was unique at this point in history. 7 No educational institution prior to this time exhibited so close a connection (and vice-versa) between town and gown. Equally unique at this point in the history of campus planning was the architectural typology of the two new structures. While the tri-partite scheme at first glance appears quite similar to the quadrangle at Harvard (fig.4 - another example of the changing attitude towards the enclosed medieval quadrangles common at the time) the structures at William and Mary owe more to Palladio?s designs for villas in sixteenth-century Italy. 8 The members are unequal -- the Brafferton and President?s house serve as dependencies Figure 3 - The Williamson Building at Oxford University by Sir Christopher Wren - a suspected precedent for the Wren Building at William and Mary. 10 of the main building (fig. 5). In this way, William and Mary exhibits a domestic character that at the time was not associated with colleges. The relationship between the buildings and the resultant courtyard is also remarkably similar to the site plan of the nearby Governor?s Palace. Louise Kale, Director of the Historic Campus at the College of William and Mary, has suggested that this might have been at least partially the result of a rivalry between the College?s president and the colonial governor and was intended to ?one-up? the structures of the Governor?s Palace. 9 Figure 4 - The Original Quadrangle at Harvard University Figure 5 - Ancient Campus Courtyard showing "domestic" character of the unequal members of the ensamble. Wren Building in center. 11 The City of Williamsburg (fig. 6) Figure 6 - The town of Williamsburg, VA 12 The town of Williamsburg was founded in 1699 largely by the efforts of Nicholson (Figs.6,7) ? who convinced the Colonial Assembly of the time to move the capital from Jamestown to the newly planned city. Nicholson, previously the planner of Annapolis, Maryland, put forth a plan that would later become an influential model for planning in the New Republic. Williamsburg is laid out in a gridiron pattern with a mile-long Cardo terminated at the west end by the Wren Building of the College, and to the east by the new capitol building (fig. 6). The Decumanus was introduced at Bruton Parish church, an important landmark that predates the town and the College, and is the site of both the town square and an expansive lawn that leads to the colonial Governor?s Palace. Early plans for the city of Williamsburg are believed to have been destroyed. The earliest detailed plans known are the Simpcoe Map of 1781 and the Frenchman?s Map of 1782 (fig. 8). These plans show the main characteristics of Nicholson?s design, but omit significant details mentioned in written travel accounts of early visitors. Research and reconstruction by scholars (notably John Reps) show that the town had a series of Figure 7 - Original plot for the town of Williamsburg. 13 diagonal streets that formed the letters ?W? and ?M? ? a tribute to the monarchs who sponsored the new town and college (fig. 9). 10 The Virginia General Assembly removed these roads at an unknown date. Figure 8 - The "Frenchman's Map" - one of the earliest known detailed plans (1782) for the city of Williamsburg. 14 Figure 9 - Conjectural plan of Williamsburg by J. Kornwolf showing the political symbolism of the early city (author's highlight). Jefferson and the 18 th Century Thomas Jefferson was a student at the College from 1760-1762. While he has written of the great respect he had for several of his tutors, he made no secret of his dislike of the Georgian architecture of the College and of Williamsburg?s major civic structures. In the 1760?s, he would be asked to draw up plans to expand the College. The result was an enclosed quadrangle much like an elongated version of the original design for the building. The foundations for such an expansion were laid, but never completed. More important than Jefferson?s involvement with planning at the College was the influence of Williamsburg?s urban plan on Jefferson ? particularly the area in front of the Governor?s Palace (fig. 10) now referred to simply as the Palace Green. 15 After finishing his studies at the College, Jefferson read law with George Wythe, who lived in one of the more notable structures abutting the Palace Green. Jefferson would later reside in the Palace as the states? Governor from 1779 to1781, and remarked of the structure: ?The Palace is not handsome without, but is spacious and commodious within, it?s prettily situated, and with the grounds annexed to it, is capable of being made an elegant seat.? 11 Jefferson drew up schematic plans for the renovation of the structure (fig.10), which show that he intended to transform the building into a more classical structure complete with a colonnade facing the Palace Green. If one examines the plan of the Green and how Jefferson?s plans would have transformed it, distinct similarities to Jefferson?s later plans for UVA (figs. 11,12) can be seen. 12 Figure 10 - The Governor's Palace and Jefferson's planned modification. 16 In his article Williamsburg, The Genesis of a Republican Civic Order From Under the Shadow of the Catalpas, Jorge Hernandez remarks upon the similarities of the Williamsburg plan to those of L?Enfant for the city of Washington in 1791 (fig. 13), and wonders if, despite their earlier destruction, L?Enfant could have known of the existence of the original diagonal streets from other sources. Hernandez continues by describing two other similarities between colonial Williamsburg and Figure 11 - Palace Green and Governor's Palace. Image used by Jorge Hernandez to illustrate similarities between the Palace Green and Jefferson's UVA. Figure 12 ? L?Enfants plan for Washington, DC Figure 13 ? The ?Grounds? at UVA 17 Washington, D.C. ? a similar arrangement and purpose of axis and cross-axis and points to Jefferson?s communication with L?Enfant and his involvement in the planning of the District of Columbia. 18 William and Mary Post-Revolution Williamsburg went into a 150-year decline following the Revolution ? never becoming a city that rivaled New York or Philadelphia as James Blair had hoped. After the war, the town lost half of its ?reason for being? when the state capital was relocated to Richmond. The College during this time would grow little, having lost students, faculty and facilities to the Revolutionary War. Numerous proposals were made to move the College to Richmond along with the seat of government. In 1824, then-President John Augustine Smith appealed to the state legislature to move the College to Richmond, where it was thought that it would benefit (as it had in the past) from a closer association with the state government and from the more urban environment of Richmond. 13 The move was opposed by the townspeople of Williamsburg, and more importantly by patrons of the fledgling University of Virginia (which included Jefferson) who feared that the College would compete with the new university. 14 Efforts to move the College would continue sporadically until 1887, when a final, failed attempt to move it was made by Herbert Adams, an educator at Johns Hopkins and close friend of then-President Benjamin S. Ewell. 15 With the exception of the law school, the College would actually close for the 1848/49 academic year, ostensibly to allow ?excitement and predjudice [sic]? over the most recent call for removal of the College to Richmond to subside. 16 In reality, the closure was 19 probably due at least as much to the physical condition of most of the buildings, which were renovated during this time. Infrastructure Problems After the 1849 renovations, the faculty again found it necessary in 1854 to request ?at least $10,000? to renovate and repair the Wren Building, which was in such poor condition that it was blamed for ?repulsing prospective students.? 17 The College found itself in need of not just building repairs, but also sewer improvements ? an issue illustrated in a1854 tongue-in-cheek ?letter to the editor? written from the point of view of a rather uneducated rural visitor: I rode along easy & was just enterin towne, when out from the front part of the kollege a hole crowd of fellers came rushing & hollering out. Ole sleepy pricked up his ears & gan to snot, -& the more he galeled the more the fellers with books shouted. Ole Sleepy never liked noise no how! & as a natural consequence, he rared and pranced & ran rite in the middle of a green puddle of water, & ? spilt all my biskits & cakes & started up a whole flock of geeses, & they kept up such another to do that i don?t know which flock of geeses kept up the most racket. I wouldn?t have minded the losin of the cakes, but those darn kollegers yelled & hawed, like they hadnt any sense. 20 And as an episode, mistur editur, what upon yearth does the sitty kounsel keep that mud puddle by the kollege for? I suppose it is for the accommodation of geeses, for there?s plenty of um in yore town? Yours in precipitation, Mr. JOBE GREEN 18 21 The Civil War and its Aftermath The College lost most of its students and faculty to the Confederate Army at the beginning of the Civil War. In 1859 the Wren Building burned again. In 1865, the ruins of the College were incorporated into a ?line of defensive works ? extending across the two adjacent roads? by the Union Army. 19 In spite of such difficulties, President Ewell began classes that fall, amid the ruins. That the College survived to thrive is largely the result of two events. The first was the renewed relationship between the College and the state of Virginia in 1888 (and its subsequent turn-over to the state in 1906 to become a public institution). The second was John D. Rockefeller Jr.?s purchase and restoration of 95% of the land and remaining structures of colonial-era Williamsburg. In 1888, the state of Virginia appropriated $10,000 to the College annually for the training of public school teachers. 20 The College formally became a state institution in 1906 following the turn-over of College property. 22 Physical Expansion in the Tyler Years (1888-1919) The newfound state support and the $64,000 in restitution Congress eventually paid for damage incurred by the College during the Civil War allowed the College to pursue significant expansion for the first time in over 150 years. 21 Under President Lyon G. Tyler (1888-1919) the College would grow to include fourteen buildings (fig. 14). Figure 14 - William and Mary in 1905. In the years preceding President Tyler?s presidency, the College grounds were largely in disarray. By 1900, the College Yard was cleared of miscellaneous outbuildings. Regular 23 walks were built to replace dirt paths. 20 While no formal plan for expansion was made during this period, it seems clear that some thought to future expansion must have been given. The architectural style of the existing buildings was largely retained in the new structures. Taliaferro, Ewell, and Tyler Halls were oriented perpendicular to Duke of Gloucester street. A gym and science building were built to the west of the Wren building, almost mirroring the President?s House and the Brafferton in their relationship to the Wren Building. More importantly, the new college library (now Tucker Hall) seemed to anticipate the formal court that would be developed under President Chandler and the first Master Plan. 24 The Return of Planning While the emotional heart, the Ancient Campus of William and Mary, is 300 years old, most of the campus (including the ?Old Campus? that is so central to William and Mary?s identity) is of much more recent construction. The majority of the present campus can trace its origin to one of three twentieth-century master plans ? the 1923 plan of Richmond architect Charles M. Robinson and landscape architect Charles F. Gillette, the 1961 plan of J. Binford Walford, O. Pendleton Wright, and Hubert Jones, and the 1987 plan of Johnson, Johnson & Roy/inc. and Deleuw, Cather & Company. Of primary importance are the 1923 and 1961 plans ? which together are responsible for the vast majority of the College?s existing buildings and establish the six ?zones? of Main Campus (fig. 15). The ?Ancient Campus? of the College is comprised of the Wren Building (1695-1700), the Brafferton (1723), the Presidents House (1732-33), and is the first zone of the College. While a few of the ?Old Campus? buildings predate it, the 1923 plan of Charles Robinson is largely responsible for creating what is today the ?Old Campus? of William and Mary ? the second zone. The 1961 plan created New Campus, which itself is comprised of two distinct zones ? the academic New Campus and the residential New Campus (author?s distinction). The ravine system that separates these three areas forms a fifth zone, and the College Woods (along with Lake Matoaka, which was created by the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1920?s by creating a dam out of Jamestown Road) forms the sixth zone of the Main Campus (fig 15). 25 Since each of these campus ?zones? was largely the result of individual ?Master Plans? and are thus distinct, the following sections will detail the history, analyze, and discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of each separately. 26 Figure 15 - Campus Zones 27 President Chandler and the Rockefeller Years The presidency of J.A.C. Chandler (1919-1934) was a defining time in William and Mary?s history. More than any other group or individual, President Chandler and Richmond architect Charles Robinson (with Gillette) would transform the campus ? and determine what William and Mary would eventually become. The College took on new responsibilities under President Chandler (and state governance). Chandler would establish pre-engineering, law, medicine and business programs and forge affiliations with Richmond and Norfolk institutions (for a period the College would become the ?Colleges? of William and Mary). 23 William and Mary assumed the responsibility of being the primary provider of higher education for eastern and southern Virginia. In 1918, under state mandate, the College would admit women. 24 Enrollment during this time would swell. In the ten years between 1918 and 1928, William and Mary?s student population would increase almost ten-fold from 134 to 1,135 students. The fourteen relatively modest buildings and 17 acres of land that William and Mary had at that point were clearly inadequate for such a population explosion (many of the original 330 acres were sold in 1888) 25 , and the College, with state and private support, embarked on an aggressive expansion program. 1,200 acres of land were purchased in 1919, and an additional 274 acres were purchased in 1923. 26 For the first time since the construction of the Brafferton and President?s House, the College would undertake a serious planning effort. 28 The 1923 Master Plan If President Chandler was the driving force behind William and Mary?s expansion, Richmond architect Charles M. Robinson and Gillette gave life to Chandler?s vision. Robinson would use the College?s (perhaps tenuous) connection to Christopher Wren as a point of departure and made several trips to England ?to view Wren structures? before working out a final plan in 1923. 27 Chelsea Hospital was said to be Robinson?s inspiration for the plan of the (at that time) ?New Campus? - which organized the campus around a Sunken Garden and established a strong east-west axis (fig. 16). Both the landscape treatment and architecture were meant to evoke architecture of Wren?s days. Figure 16 - Rendering of Charles Robinson's 1923 Campus Plan. Robinson, in what can best be described as both professional brochures for his work and public propaganda pamphlets put out by the College to raise funds, stated in reference to 29 the new campus: ?Preserving the feeling of Early Virginia Colonial Architecture yet at the same time modern in plan and appointments, these recent buildings combine twentieth century utility with seventeenth century charm,? and ?The quaint formality of an almost forgotten past is suggested by the sunken garden, terraces, and brick walks.? 28 Interestingly, Neo-Georgian architecture had, at this time, come into vogue for campus construction. While it seems likely that Robinson was more influenced in his stylistic decisions for the new campus construction by local context and existing Campus buildings, it is interesting to ponder the role of public taste of the time. Robinson?s plan organized the campus around a sunken English garden on axis with the Wren Building and Duke of Gloucester Street. * Academic buildings fronted the ?Sunken Garden,? and were themselves ringed by residential and supporting buildings in a diamond-shaped arrangement that took the site?s triangular shape into consideration. Robinson left the end of the garden partially unresolved. It is said that President Chandler liked to tell of Jefferson?s desire to add a westward looking (and un-terminated) lawn to the Wren building back when he was a student. 29 Some researchers have maintained that the diamond shape of Robinson?s plan clearly anticipated a termination? and that Jefferson?s ideas probably didn?t influence Robinson. 30 Features of the site and Robinson?s original renderings seem to suggest otherwise. Significant topography at the western end of the ?diamond? would have made construction difficult, and leaving a * Interestingly, the axis ?kinks? at the Wren Building, and actually veers off a few degrees to the north. Visible in plan, but imperceptible experientially, it?s a good example of the quirks often seen in classical/traditional plans. 30 pinched opening that channels an outward view seems a powerful gesture. The end of the Sunken Garden was soon enclosed with a semicircular wall ? which provides an effective transition to the less ordered ?west.? Proposals would be made at several points in the future to terminate the Sunken Garden with a building (see fig. 27) ? but the desire to leave the westward expanse open to the ?wilderness? prevailed, and it seems safe to say that development will not occur in this region. Work on the Master Plan began in 1919 and was completed in 1923. As construction of Jefferson Hall (fig. 17) was completed in 1921, it seems likely that the basic plan for campus expansion had been at least partially worked out by this time. Several alterations were made to Robinson?s original plan for the campus. The double rows of trees that were to link Barrett (fig. 17) Dormitory with the Blow Gymnasium (fig. 17) were never fully planted, and the resultant landscape has less of a north-south cross- axis than Robinson intended. The science building and gymnasium built under President Tyler to the west of the Wren Building were incorporated into the Master Plan, but were removed relatively early in the life of the ?New? Old Campus (seen in figs. 14 & 16) ? allowing the Wren Building to assume a more prominent position at the end of the Sunken Garden in its own ?court.? Barrett Hall was originally a ?bar building,? but was later modified to the ?bent? shape of today. Finally, the low row of boxwoods planted around the Sunken Garden was allowed to grow ? obscuring the view between the buildings flanking the Sunken Garden that Robinson envisioned. (This was changed in 3/03). 31 Work around Lake Matoaka and the College Woods (see fig. 15), which was envisioned as a park and wilderness area, was also undertaken at this time, although significant progress in this area would not be achieved until the Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service developed the area as a civic project during the Depression in 1933. 31 Not to be overlooked was the concurrent renaissance that the city of Williamsburg was undergoing. Starting around the turn of the century, a new interest in Williamsburg?s importance in American history was growing, and a young reverend named W.A.R. Goodwin (who had been assigned to Bruton Parish on the condition that he restore the interior to its 18 th century appearance) had a clear vision of what Williamsburg could become. 32 Goodwin would eventually convince John D. Rockefeller Jr. to fund a massive restoration project in Williamsburg. Rockefeller, who saw the democratic ideals that were developed by the Founding Fathers in Williamsburg as the hallmarks of a better time (in a civic sense) was invited to the College in 1926 to attend the opening dedication ceremony for the first Phi Beta Kappa Hall (now Ewell Hall). Goodwin, who had approached Rockefeller several times previously, used the event to help secure Rockefeller?s participation. As the College?s Director of Development under President Chandler, Goodwin was also involved in the College?s expansion ? which would benefit from its association with the revived colonial city. 32 By 1935 most of the buildings in the Robinson plan were complete. While the American National Theater and Academy?s Festival Theater Competition of 1938-39 invited a number of renowned architects to make plans for a site at the end of the Sunken Garden, the competition was largely theoretical, and there was a construction hiatus for a number of years. 33 Figure 17 ? Buildings on Old Campus 33 Analysis and Critical Commentary Concerning the 1923 Robinson Plan for William and Mary Robinson?s 1923 Master Plan was by-and-large extremely successful. The resultant ?Old Campus,? has become, along with the Wren Building, the emotional heart of the College of William and Mary. The buildings are of high quality in both design and construction and have aged well. Without the Old Campus, the College would simply not exist. (?Old Campus? is defined and illustrated in Figure15) Old Campus has become a residential academic village, and like well-planned towns of old, is self-supporting. Academic, residential, and supporting structures all architecturally compliment each other, and are in close proximity (fig. 19). It is highly ?imageable,? pedestrian friendly (figs. 20,23), and exhibits a logical sequence of ?places? -- it is a ?place? as opposed to just a ?space? (fig. 21). Buildings are clearly related to both each other and to landscape elements (fig. 22). Features present in the design of Old Campus do not exist elsewhere on campus (see analysis of 1961 plan) and it is no coincidence that Old Campus is home to the most popular dormitory spaces on campus. Rarely remarked upon is Robinson?s inclusion of romantic elements in the otherwise Baroque plan ? a move that actually started back in 1723 with the construction of the President?s House (Fig. 18). The President?s House and Brafferton are aligned parallel to the Duke of Gloucester Street. While the primary view of these structures is from the Wren Courtyard, the views from Richmond and Jamestown Road are also significant (the 34 roads pre-date these structures). As Richmond and Jamestown Roads are at an angle to the Duke of Gloucester Street, the views presented of these buildings are on the oblique ? and decidedly picturesque. Similar arrangements of buildings are seen in the Robinson Plan of 1923. Blow Memorial Hall is also viewed on the oblique from Richmond Road (Fig. 18). From ?behind? the academic buildings on the Sunken Garden, the dormitories are viewed on an oblique. Barrett Hall is also viewed this way from Barksdale Field, Figure 18 - The President's House and Blow Memorial Hall are viewed on the oblique from Richmond Road. 35 Figure 19 - Current Building Usage on Old Campus 36 Figure 20 - Old Campus Pedestrian Pathways 37 Figure 21 - Open Spaces and Places on Old Campus 38 Figure 22 - Building Relationships on Old Campus 39 Figure 23 - Five-Minute Walking Radii 40 The design of Old Campus is not without a few quirks/problems. The east-west pathways that run parallel to each other on the north and south sides of the Sunken Garden terminate somewhat awkwardly at the west end of the Garden (Figs.24,25). On the eastern end, these paths continue into Ancient Campus, and eventually converge at the easternmost end of Campus at the Duke of Gloucester Street ? which terminates at the Colonial Capitol one mile distant. On the west end of the Sunken Garden, each path, from a distance, appears to simply end in front of a mass of trees. Upon approach, the pedestrian is turned abruptly south at the end of the southern walk and led towards the outlying dormitories. At the end of the northern walk the pedestrian is led off on a gravel trail that takes the traveler towards the University Center. Figure 24 - Unresolved termination of southern east-west pedestrian arterial. The situation at the northern walk is similar. 41 Neither of these issues is particularly serious and both can be easily remedied. As the topography changes dramatically at the south walk there is an opportunity for a decorative retaining wall fronted by a public sculpture (possibly incorporating a stair) to terminate the walk. The northern walk ?terminates? similarly, but with a more gradual topographical change. A more significant threshold to mark the transition to another part of Old Campus is needed, and could be easily accomplished; there are strong examples of such on other parts of Campus. A brick walk should continue from this threshold ? as opposed to the current gravel path. Figure 25 - Location of ambiguous/undefined termination of east-west pedestrian arterials. 42 While an issue of implementation instead of a criticism of the original Robinson Plan, the failure to strongly establish the planned north-south cross axis (fig. 26) creates a somewhat ambiguous landscape condition to the north and south of the academic buildings situated around the Sunken Garden (see fig. 21). More of an issue to the south of the Sunken Garden, an examination of future landscaping plans should probably be undertaken to determine if the College wishes to ?clarify? this area. Robinson had planned for a dramatic view of Barrett Hall and its semi-circular porch through a double row of trees from the south pathway paralleling the Sunken Garden. The porch would be the terminus of the North-South campus axis started at the southern face of Blow Hall. The view is presently blocked by a large cryptomeria specimen tree, tragically located in the wrong place. In the late 1930?s, Dr. J. T. Baldwin, Jr., a professor of biology at the College, began a program of planting that would last until his 1975 retirement. Dr. Baldwin?s efforts resulted in a diverse collection of more than 300 woody species that is a valuable teaching tool for plant sciences. Instead of following a master plan, however, Dr. Baldwin used a ?[take] ten steps and plant? strategy 34 that in some areas did little to improve the College visually. Removal of this tree (and possibly others) will no doubt be initially opposed. However, it would pave the way for the re-landscaping and clarification of the area south of Washington Hall and North of Barrett (seen in fig. 17), ? which has tremendous potential but currently exists as a bit of a ?no man?s land.? The Sunken Garden could not have existed without the removal of similar specimen trees ? and today it is part of the very heart of the College (fig. 27). 43 Figure 26 - Location of "underdeveloped" north-south axis of the 1923 Master Plan. Note inability to see Barrett porch (highlighted in red) from points north due to ambiguous landscape conditions. 44 Figure 27 - The area that would become the Sunken Garden. 45 The 1961 Master Plan The Robinson/Chandler Campus was designed to accommodate 1200 students. By 1953 the student population exceeded this number by more than 400. By 1962, over 2,600 students would be enrolled at the College. 35 President Alvin Duke Chandler (the son of J.A. Chandler) would therefore find himself in a position to influence the dramatic expansion of the College, and prepared a long list of facilities requests for the governor. While a new master plan would not be developed for several more years, an event that would significantly impact the direction of campus expansion occurred in 1953 with the burning of the main auditorium at the original Phi Beta Kappa hall. (fig. 31) 31 The faculty, led by Professor Howard Dearstyne of the Art Department, asserted that the needs of the College had already surpassed what the old auditorium could provide, and suggested that an entirely new building be constructed on a different site so as not to be constrained by ?stylistic issues.? 36 Dearstyne would become a strong advocate for a modern design ? that ?could be made harmonious with the older buildings through a careful use of materials?? 37 The Fine Arts Department argued that the building might well set the pattern of campus development for the next 25 years. And so it did, when the building was finally built on a site down Jamestown Road. A new master planning process was unofficially started in the late 1950?s by the architectural firm of J. Binford Walford, O. Pendleton Wright, and Hubert Jones (the successor firm to Charles M. Robinson). The question of stylistic appropriateness would continue through the late 1950?s with the firm initially suggesting that a new Georgian 46 library be placed at the end of the Sunken Garden (and later at an angle to it - fig. 28). The State Fine Arts Commission vetoed these preliminary suggestions as inappropriate. 38 A later 1959 plan (fig. 29) would separate the Campus into distinct ?functional zones,? a feature that would be retained in the final 1961 Master Plan. Figure 28 - 1957 study for the 1961 Master Plan. 47 Figure 29 - 1959 study for the 1961 Master Plan. By 1960, both enrollment numbers and the curriculum at the College had greatly expanded. The College took over primary managerial responsibility for a number of other Virginia institutions (Virginia Commonwealth University, Old Dominion University, etc.) and would become, for a while, the ?Colleges? of William and Mary. 39 At this point, facilities deficiencies had reached a critical level, and by 1961, a new Master Plan (fig. 30) was presented to the Board of Visitors and the State Fine Art Commission that placed a new academic court over by the new Phi Beta Kappa Hall, and made provisions for a more informal residential area to the west. 48 Figure 30 - 1961 Master Plan. The 1961 Master Plan was a distinct departure from the Baroque plan of the Old Campus. The new structures were to be arranged ?in relationship to the topography of the land and not to fit into a pre-designed man-drawn scheme,? and would make ?deliberate use of existing valleys, and folds in the hills? as elements to separate functional areas. 40 Thus the College entered into 20 th -century modernism with respect to campus planning. Any stylistic issues that remained at that time were largely decided by financial pressures ? and the new structures were designed with greatly simplified detailing ? modernism 49 would therefore take hold architecturally as well (fig. 32). Stylistic tradition would be (somewhat) maintained through use of materials. The 1961 Master Plan proposed six academic buildings arranged around a center axis between Phi Beta Kappa Hall and a new library (Swem, fig. 31). In seeming contradiction to the stated intent of designing purely with respect to topological consideration (and not conforming to any preconceived man-made plan), the bilateral symmetry of the design was supposed to relate to the Old Campus. 41 The library was to be the new focus of this part of campus and six academic buildings would ?fan out? to avoid congestion and ?allow vistas of the natural beauty of the site.? 42 New dormitories to the west were to be arranged in a less formal ?spoked wheel? pattern that would provide similar vistas. 43 Large parts of the 1961 Master Plan were built according to recommendations (particularly on the academic zone of the plan), although the shapes of several of the buildings would be altered from the original bar structures and the sixth building on the east side of the area was never built. 50 Figure 31 - Proposal for Yates Hall (Men's Dormitory) Figure 32 ? New Campus Buildings 51 Analysis and Commentary Concerning the 1961 Master Plan Considerably more problematic than Robinson?s 1923 vision are the results of the 1961 Campus Master Plan ? particularly the new residential section of Campus. While it is difficult at best to evaluate relatively recent architecture and proclaim it either ?good? or ?bad,? some general observations can nevertheless be made about New Campus. The general assertion that the plan was driven purely by topography so as not to conform to any man-made, preconceived design seems logically flawed ? as a Master Plan is, by definition, man-made, and a plan, is, by definition, a preconceived course of action. It is difficult to argue that Charles Robinson did not take topographical and other site considerations into mind when designing the 1923 plan, or that he had a ?preconceived? plan before examining the site and visiting precedents. Definitional quibbles aside, the assumption that this was a proper and/or desirable design philosophy to pursue to begin with is highly suspect. If the stated goal was to design ?in relationship to the topography of the land and not to fit into a pre-designed man-drawn scheme,? and arrange buildings in ?order to take advantage of natural vistas? 44 ? it would logically necessitate that ?pleasant? landscape features and vistas pre-exist. Here the firm of Walford and Wright seems to overemphasize the romance of the region ? something that the Walt Disney Corporation would be guilty of in the 1999 animated film ?Pocahontas? ? which portrays the Jamestown and Williamsburg area as a beautiful, rocky and rugged region of waterfalls. While the coasts of the James and York Rivers are undeniably attractive, they are not 52 visible from town, and the land that the city of Williamsburg and the College occupy is largely flat and devoid of significant ?natural? vistas. No waterfalls. No rock outcroppings. Topography exists in the form of ravines ? not as visible hills. It is arguable that what makes the region so attractive is almost all manmade. The architecture of individual buildings. The design of landscapes. The arrangement and relation of ensembles of buildings. One only has to spend time on the campus of Walford and Wright to realize that the ?channels? between the academic buildings do not, in fact, frame nice views (fig. 33). New Campus dormitories ostensibly strove for a picturesque arrangement in harmony with nature ? yet nature has been largely supplanted by parking lots and roads. The objects of those desired views are arguably rather unattractive, poorly made buildings. Figure 33 - Undefined space between Morton and Jones Halls. During the academic year a large surface parking lot can be seen in the background. One of the more important aspects of Old Campus (that is completely absent in New Campus) is the self-contained academic community that it forms. As discussed earlier, Old Campus is, in effect, a self-supporting town complete with a town ?center? (the 53 Sunken Garden). Unquestionably, this quality is critical to the success and enduring popularity of this region. The distinct functional zones created by the 1961 Master Plan, in hindsight, seem unfortunate ? as the single-use zones of Campus are the least successful. New Residential Campus seems much like a typical late twentieth century American suburb. There is not enough variation of function for them to be self-supporting, or particularly interesting (fig. 34). Noted urban designer Andres Duany, in his book Suburban Nation, asks the reader whether or not they would prefer to take a walk in Georgetown, Washington, DC, or an anonymous suburb in northern Virginia. 44 The answer presumably being Georgetown, Duany asks the reader if this might be because Georgetown is more pedestrian friendly (fig. 34) and visually interesting. 45 New (residential) Campus is much the same as the anonymous suburb. The roads are relatively wide and straight. Cars not only park roadside, but also are able to travel at a significant speed on them (figs. 36, 37). Pedestrians seem almost the uninvited guest (fig. 39). Nondescript dorms and parking lots take the place of cookie-cutter houses and garages. The vacant front yards of the typical suburb are replaced by undefined fields (Fig. 38). New Residential Campus is simply not an area many people would choose for an afternoon walk. It is, in effect, a ?bedroom community? ? a place people go to sleep and little else. Claiming that the mixed use of Old Campus is desirable while seemingly reasonable, could perhaps be considered a subjective opinion. An examination of student and 54 alumni attitudes towards the campus as presented in College literature can shed some light on the perceived ?value? of different areas of campus. A survey of literature of interest to students and alumni (yearbooks, and in particular ?coffee table? books) put out by the College will show that the vast majority of images published of the Campus are of the ?Ancient? and ?Old? sections. The relatively few images of New Campus are almost invariably of athletic events on Barksdale Field or images of the front of the library. It should also be noted that the pictures taken from Barksdale Field usually look to the east towards Barrett Dormitory (and not into New Campus) ? and are, in effect, pictures of Old Campus. Examination of the College?s promotional material for prospective students (both printed and electronic) will reveal similar trends (Table 1 & 2). New Campus is rarely shown. It seems reasonable to state that these areas of campus are viewed less favorably and are deemed not as ?special.? It also seems reasonable to suggest that part of this is due to the mixed-use nature of Old Campus, which, along with the obvious architectural differences, is the most significant difference between the two regions. 55 Images on The College?s Internet Virtual Tour (2002) Total Images 20 15 10 Images of Specific Campus Locations Images of Old Campus Images of New Campus 5 Images of Exterior Spaces on New Campus1 Table 1 ? Images on the College?s Internet Virtual Tour Panoramic Movies on The College?s Web Site (2002) Total Number of Panoramic Movies:18 Total number of panoramic movies depicting exterior spaces:8 Number of those movies filmed on Old Campus:7 Number of those movies filmed on New Campus:1 Total number of panoramic movies depicting interior spaces:9 Number of those movies filmed in Old Campus buildings:8 Note: Two of these movies are interior films of the University Center ? a new building on Old Campus Number of those movies filmed in New Campus Buildings: 1 Total number of panoramic movies filmed in residence halls:3 Number of those movies filmed in Old Campus Dormitories:3 Number of those movies filmed in New Campus Dormitories:0 Table 2 ? Panoramic Movies on the College?s Web Site 56 Figure 34 - Building Usage at William and Mary. 57 Figure 35 - Pedestrian Pathways 58 Figure 36 - Vehicular Circulation 59 Figure 37 - Campus Parking 60 Figure 38 - Open Spaces and Places 61 The 1987 Master Plan (fig. 39) Figure 39 - 1987 Master Plan. Yates Hall is the "bar building" by "1." Dupont Hall is the Brown "Z" building by "2." An attempt to define the "leaky" open space between Jones, Morton and Small Halls is seen by "3." The proposed University Center is by "4." The proposed extension of Blair Hall is by ?5.? The 1987 Master Plan (fig. 38) by the firm of Johnson, Johnson & Roy/inc. and Deleuw, Cather & Company can be seen as an infill scheme. Unlike the master plans of 1923 and 1961, the 1987 Master Plan does not attempt to physically enlarge the campus. The plan seeks to identify areas that could be developed on existing campus grounds. To its merit, it does this while attempting to rationalize problematic spaces on Campus, and while 62 several positive suggestions are made, the plan fails to provide a comprehensive solution that addresses the larger issues. The College has acted on several of the positive suggestions of the plan. The final building on the Sunken Garden was completed in celebration of the College?s 300 th anniversary in 1993. A new University Center was constructed approximately where the firm recommended, although the final plan avoided destroying all of the Lodges and enclosed Zable Stadium ? both improvements over the original recommendation (see page 101 for a discussion of the Lodges). Sixteen years later, however, the College has not acted on the recommendation to relocate the students housed at the Dillard Complex ? arguably one of the most important elements of the 1987 plan. It appears that this will happen under the 2003 Precinct Plan done by Sasaki and Associates Other proposals in the 1987 Master Plan, had they been adopted, would have been detrimental to the College. For example, the plan recognizes the areas formed by Yates and Dupont Halls as marginal, and attempts to regularize them by creating semi-enclosed courtyards. Unfortunately, the solutions focus on localized interventions, and fail to provide the central physical and emotional focus that the residential area so desperately needs. The plan would simply enlarge the unstructured ?bedroom community? that already exists. 63 The plan also recommends that Brown Residence Hall (fig. 40) be disposed of as it was too ?separated? from the rest of Campus. Old Campus does, in a few places, extend outside of its main diamond-shaped area. Brown Hall resides in one of these interesting ?in-between? zones ? not wholly part of Old/Ancient Campus nor quite part of Colonial Williamsburg. Ancient and Old Campus frequently play host to tourists (often picnicking on the Sunken Garden) ? but as these areas are enclosed by a brick wall, it is clear that the tourist (or townsperson) is an ?invited guest,? and although this is not necessarily undesirable, it would seem that a partial mingling of ?town and gown? could have interesting advantages. Brown and several additional ?Old Campus? buildings help to create a bridge/transition zone between the campus and Williamsburg that allows both student and visitor to feel a part of each. It serves as a rather elegant fusion of town and gown (inasmuch as Colonial Williamsburg is the ?town? part of Williamsburg ? privately owned residences are relatively few and quite expensive in this area). Figure 40 - Brown Hall. To the left are various shops. 64 In the end, the 1987 Plan is largely a ?salvage plan? ? a stopgap measure that prolongs the recovery of the residential part of New Campus. It provides uninspired solutions to a few spatial issues caused by the 1961 Master Plan but misses the larger problem ? doing nothing to provide spatial hierarchy or clarity to these areas and nothing to address their single-use nature. 65 The 2003 Precinct Plan by the Firm of Sasaki & Associates and Boyton, Rothchild & Rowland Architects: Analysis and Commentary While not without its faults, the 2003 Precinct Plan (fig.41) is a considerable improvement over the 1987 Master Plan, and goes a long way towards addressing its faults. It is questionable, however, if the 2003 Plan is the best course of action for the College to pursue. Figure 41 - The 2003 Precinct Plan by Sasaki and Associates with Boyton, Rothchild, and Rowland Architects. The Precinct Plan focuses its attention almost entirely on the ?South Campus? ? the area referred to in this document as the ?Academic New Campus.? It seeks to create formal, well defined civic spaces; something the 1987 Master Plan fails to do. In a limited way, the proposal mirrors the area of campus to its north, creating a new formal space that is 66 roughly balanced by Zable Stadium and Carey Field ? at least in plan, if not in function. The edges of Swem Quadrangle (Fig. 42, Number 1) are strengthened to address their current ?leakiness? and the area formed is somewhat mirrored by open space behind Zable Stadium (while a pre-existing condition, the 2003 plan makes this slightly more apparent). To the west the plan recommends the removal of Jones and Morton Halls, both marginal, and replaces them with an open green (Figure 42, number 3). The relationship between the town and the College that exists at the easternmost part of Jamestown Road is extended westward (Fig. 42, Number 3) On a smaller scale, the Sasaki Plan re-establishes sightlines between buildings across the Sunken Garden and strengthens the westward extensions of the main Old Campus Arterials ? although an appropriate ?gateway? still seems to be absent. Building typology on Old Campus is also analyzed, and the Plan recommends that future construction be complementary to existing Old Campus structures. The Sasaki Plan does have several questionable aspects, the first of which is a ?lack of focus.? While the current conditions on the ?South Campus? are somewhat problematic, the area nevertheless has a clearly defined center ? the Swem Courtyard. While creating what will arguably be several nice outdoor places, the Sasaki Plan perhaps does so at the expense of an overall hierarchy. Old Campus has a single center ? the Sunken Garden. The ?South Campus? (the Academic New Campus that is the focus of the Sasaki Plan) is currently defined by the Swem Courtyard. Creating three similar open places on South Campus (an area approximately the size of Old Campus, which only has one primary 67 open place) without one that is clearly more ?special? may well muddy clarity. The concept of three distinct but clearly related (and connected) campus zones, while not presently well executed, has a certain appeal, and is largely discounted as a future possibility by the 2003 plan. The plan also introduces new ideas about ?place making? that are not currently present at the College and that are perhaps inconsistent with the developmental history of the school and surrounding context. The Precinct Plan creates two enclosed courtyards on ?South Campus? ? one academic and one residential (Fig, 42, Numbers 1 & 2). While not in themselves objectionable, the College?s early development abandoned similar courtyards in favor of three-sided quadrangles open ?to nature? (and it was, along with Harvard, the first institution to do this) and has to this point not re-adopted them in any formal sense * nor do they exist in Colonial Williamsburg. Similarly, the Sasaki plan advocates a building density not currently seen in the region by forming most of its proposed ?places? with closely placed buildings. The current language of the area uses more loosely placed buildings combined with landscape elements to define ?places.? In context the Sasaki plan looks a bit out of place. * The 1961 Swem Courtyard is not really of this type as the views were meant to be directed outwards along diagonal ?sight channels? whereas a traditional enclosed courtyard of the type Sasaki and Associates propose is much more internally focused. 68 Figure 42 - The 2003 Precinct Plan Neither of these aspects of the Plan are deal-breakers, and the rational behind these decisions is understandable. The plan does, however, avoid the larger planning issues at the College and the question must be asked whether it is the most appropriate plan for the College?s future growth. The Precinct Plan advocates a campus organization that is formal to the east and ?interpretive? to the east. This is perhaps not a bad principal, and is consistent with the history of the College?s development. English Landscape Gardens are ?interpretive? and are often connected to a more formal architectural element. To the east the Sunken terminates at the Wren Courtyard and is quite formal. It is much more 69 ?interpretive? and romantic to the west. With Lake Matoaka to the West, a similar gestalt for the larger campus could be successful. Unfortunately, the Sasaki Precinct Plan doesn?t acknowledge that the residential area of New Campus is clearly marginal ? no one would confuse it with an English garden. By focusing extensive construction on an area that isn?t ?that bad? (that could be improved with a less severe intervention) and ignoring a more problematic area, the Precinct Plan by Sasaki and Associates is difficult to defend as the most appropriate solution. Authors Note: In fairness to the Precinct Plan, Sasaki and Associates focused their attention on the Academic New Campus at the direction of the College?s administration. Originally asked to simply assist in the development of a residential complex, the firm insisted that it would be irresponsible for them to do so without a coherent area plan. The administration therefore agreed to allow Sasaki and Associates to develop a limited area plan in the region. Hopefully someone will do the same for the western part of campus. 70 Lessons Learned ? a Graphical Argument in Support of ?Mixed-Use? Campus Zones The preceding pages have attempted to illustrate that ?mixed-use? is a desirable characteristic for a campus zone to posses. The term is popularly used in the urban design field to describe areas that have a variety of ?reasons for being.? Depending on the size of the community in question, it will have several, if not all of the following within walking distance: retail facilities, residences, places of employment, places of recreation, cultural attractions and public services. One could spend a day (or a year) in such an area and find all the requirements of daily life. ?Mixed-use? facilitates a vibrant, active community. Worldwide, the most notable communities, town centers (and campus zones) exhibit this quality. The most successful parts of William and Mary are the most functionally diverse. Conversely, the least successful are the most functionally homogeneous. While other factors contribute to the success of a ?place? (such as the presence or absence of well-defined open spaces (discussed next)), the importance of creating ?mixed-use? zones will be crucial to improving the marginal areas of William and Mary?s campus. The following pages present both a quantitative analysis of building usage in different campus zones at William and Mary and a graphic analysis of the ?cores? of several architecturally significant campuses ? including several of William and Mary?s identified peers (figs. 44-47). 71 Student Activty Buildings 51% Academic 49% Student Activity Buildings 18% Physical Plant 6% Residential 32% Administrative 11% Academic 20% Other 13% Old Campus Building Usage New (Academic) Campus Building Usage New (Residential) Campus Building Usage New (Residential) Campus Building Usage if William and Mary Hall is discounted Figure 43 ? Building Usage as Percentage of Total Built Structures by Region Residential 50% Arena 29% Student Activity Buildings 21% Student Activty/Support 29% Residential 71% Figure 43 - Building Usage as a Percentage of Total Built Structures by Region 72 Figure 44 - Building Usage at Dartmouth College 73 Figure 45 - Building Usage at Princeton University 74 Figure 46 - Building Usage at UVA 75 Figure 47 - Building Usage at University of Maryland, College Park 76 Lessons Learned ? A Graphical Argument in Support of Open ?Places? While the preceding sections present the fact that Old Campus has well-defined open ?places,? that the academic portion of New Campus has somewhat less defined ?places,? and that the residential section of New Campus is almost completely devoid of such features, it doesn?t, perhaps, clearly explain the importance of such areas. Along with mixed-use districts, highly successful towns, communities and campuses have meaningful ?open places.? This is as true in highly dense metropolitan areas as it is in small towns or college campuses (be they urban or agrarian in origin). Open places have several important functions. They define areas by providing a center. They serve as important recreational and gathering areas. They act as landmarks, and by linking such landmarks to one another through the use of promenades or other elements they lend hierarchy to entire regions. Central Park in New York serves both as an important ?natural? release from the dense concrete of Manhattan, and as a focal point that helps to define Manhattan by giving it a center. Roman Emperor Sixtus V linked open places in Rome to create an easily ?visualizable? city that helped religious pilgrims to go from one pilgrimage site to another (and in so doing helped to give a face to one of the world?s greatest cities). On a smaller scale, Savannah, Georgia is defined by its grid of urban parks. The University of 77 Virginia is forever identified by its unforgettable Lawn. The Sunken Garden is the heart of William and Mary. None of these places could exist without such well-defined outdoor ?places.? A large part of the ?problem? on residential New Campus is the lack of such a place. The following pages quantitatively illustrate the land usage in various campus zones, and present a several scale comparisons of significant campus spaces (figs. 48,49) 78 Old Campus Ground Coverage New (Academic) Campus Ground Coverage New (Residential) Campus Ground Coverage Figure 48 ? Land Usage by Region Other 43% Parking 6% Undefined Open Spaces 8% Poorly Defined Open Spaces 7% Defined Open Spaces 23% Building Coverage 13% Building Coverage 8% Defined Open Space 4% Poorly Defined Open Space 2% Un-Defined Open Space 19% Parking 13% Other 54% Other 20% Defined Open Space 40% Parking 17% Building Coverage 13% Poorly Defined Open Space 10% Figure 48 - Land Usage by Region 79 Figure 49 - Scale Comparisons 80 Cross Campus Comparisons of Building Typology and Detailing The following pages pictorially and diagrammatically compare and contrast regional features (buildings, pathways, etc.). This information is used to help establish appropriate language for the intervention. 81 Features of Academic Buildings on Old Campus ? Three to five stories. Five story buildings always have a basement and an attic as two of the stories. Four story buildings will have either a basement or an attic. ? Flemish Bond brick ? Georgian or Neo-Georgian. ? Have clear relationships to other buildings and the landscape. (Fig. 23) ? Have a Water Table. ? Have setbacks or porticos to give entrances hierarchy. ? Simple, hierarchical massing. ? Facades exhibit clear hierarchy. ? Have pediments. ? Pitched slate roofs. ? Have ceremonial spaces off of entrances. ? Figure 50 - Academic Buildings on Old Campus 82 Features of Academic Buildings on New Campus ? Three, four, and occasionally five, stories. Buildings always have a three-story appearance from the primary entrance. . ? Usually Flemish Bond brick. ? ?Modern? style. ? Rarely have a clear relationship to other buildings or to the landscape. ? Rarely have setbacks. ? Simple or complex massing. ? Do not always have clear hierarchy. ? Almost always have flat roofs. ? Almost never have ceremonial spaces. Figure 51 - Academic Buildings on New Campus 83 Typical Features of Old Campus Residence Halls ? Three, four or five stories. Usually three but occasionally four floors of student rooms. ? Usually have large formal entrances and formal reception rooms. Hunt is an exception, but it was originally used as an infirmary. ? Use a ?double-loaded corridor? parti. ? Lounges/reception rooms are on the ground floor. Some residence halls use converted student rooms on upper floors as lounges. ? Flemish bond brickwork. ? Plaster Walls. Figure 52 - Old Campus Residence Halls 84 Typical Features of New Campus Residence Halls ? Three stories. ? Lounges and kitchens are on ground floor. ? Use a ?bar? or ?cluster? parti. ? Cinderblock walls. ? No common cross-regional characteristics (different types of brick patterns and windows are used throughout the region). Figure 53 - New Campus Residence Halls 85 Figure 54 - Residence Hall Typology 86 Features of Old Campus Pathways ? Typically Herringbone brick. ? Main pedestrian arterials are 10ft. wide (typ.) Primary pedestrian pathways are 8ft. wide (typ.) Secondary pedestrian pathways are 6ft. wide (typ.) ? Most of Old Campus is closed to vehicular traffic and is pedestrian friendly. ? Typically lined with mature trees. ? Often terminate at buildings. ? Pathway organization is highly ordered and helps to define/order Old Campus. ? The primary E-W arterials have vague terminations / transitions to the west. Figure 55 - Typical Old Campus Paths 87 Features of New Campus Pathways Academic Section ? Are lined with low bushes or not at all. ? Have vague terminations. ? Do not usually define areas. Patterns seem to exist for their own sake. Residential Section ? Little hierarchy to pathways. ? Circulation is largely devoted to vehicular traffic and is not particularly pedestrian friendly. ? Most not lined. ? Terminations and transitions are not apparent. ? Pathways are mainly roadside sidewalks and as such are organized much like ?suburb? roadways. Figure 56 - Typical New Campus Paths 88 Figure 57 - Walkway Sections 89 Figure 58 ? Old Campus Entrances 90 Figure 59 - Entrance Typology 91 Figure 60 - Windows on Old Campus 92 Figure 61 - Window Typology on Old Campus 93 Figure 62 - New Campus Entrances and Windows 94 Figure 63 - New Campus Window Typology 95 Facility Assessment and Recommendations The following section assesses the condition and uses of various campus facilities and makes recommendations for future utilization. These guidelines are used in the intervention. 96 Old Campus Sites (Fig. 64) Figure 64 - Buildings Identified Old Campus is not particularly problematic. There are, however, several sites on Jamestown Road worth discussing. While home to the Facilities Management Complex, the Police Station and the Gore Childcare Center, the area behind the Campus Center is devoted largely to surface parking. The area is in many ways similar to the site occupied by Brown Hall (discussed on pg. 63). Situated roughly at the juncture of Ancient Campus and Colonial 97 Williamsburg, this area could afford unique opportunities for students, the citizens of Williamsburg, and the heavy tourist population to interact. The land could be better utilized by constructing a parking deck on or near the area (possibly on South Boundary Street). Already home to several residence halls of high quality, the area could be developed into a vibrant residential community. The two-story residences on Jamestown road are also worth discussing. There is something decidedly picturesque about the century-old houses opposite the core of Old Campus on Jamestown Road. Presently these buildings are entirely administrative in function ? many are home to departments that have little, if any, daily interaction with students. While students (despite what they may sometimes think) are not the only important part of the campus community, they are arguably the ones who will most benefit from (or be disadvantaged by) the physical arrangement of the College. Returning at least a part of Jamestown Road to the daily lives of students by relocating less student-centered administrative offices to a renovated/adapted Dillard Complex should be considered. 98 The Lodges (fig. 65) Figure 65 - The Lodges (King Student Health Center to left) Function ? Residential Building Type ? One Story Single ?Family? residences Size ? 14,000ft 2 Fraternity houses in the earlier part of the last century, these structures now exist as small residential cottages. The quaintness of the houses and the prime location (combined with the relative scarcity of apartment living on Campus) have made these residences extremely popular ? even among students who, by luck of the draw, will never get the opportunity to live in one. They house only about 50 students. 99 The design portion of this thesis advocates incorporating these structures into ?Faculty Row? (on-campus faculty housing) in the belief the social benefits of such a proposal outweigh their value as student housing (and their loss will be mitigated by the conversion of Jamestown Road houses to student residences). Figure 62 also shows the King Student Health Center. A marginal building in an important site, it is suggested that this facility be moved to the now vacant College Bookstore building (the unlabled yellow structure show in figure 64). Figure 66 - A "Lodge." 100 Building Assessment ? The Dillard Complex (Fig. 64) Figure 67 - The Dillard Complex Function ? Residential and Athletic Building Type ? Early 20 th Century Institutional Dormitories Size ? Approximately 100,000ft 2 of built structure The physical structures at the Dillard Complex are of some architectural merit and are of relatively high quality. The Dillard Complex exists, nevertheless, as an oxymoron ? ?on- campus? residence halls that are located two and a half miles off campus. These facilities, next to a state psychiatric hospital (in buildings formerly part of the hospital), are primarily home to sophomores ? who get the last pick of campus housing under the ?lottery? system in use by the College. Served by shuttle bus, the Dillard Complex robs its 300 residents of a core aspect of the ?William and Mary experience? ? the close-knit residential community that exists on Main Campus. Relocating these students to facilities on the Main Campus should be one of the first issues to be addressed by the College. 101 Also out at the Dillard Complex are the campus motor pool for shuttle buses, the new baseball stadium, and numerous intramural fields. Recommendations ? Discontinue use as residence halls. Consider consolidating the administrative offices on Jamestown Road that do not have regular interaction with students at the Dillard Complex (Approx. 24,000Ft 2 ). The building typology is well suited for this use and should require minimal modification. Alternately, the buildings could be used as off-site archival storage. ? Consolidate athletic functions at the Complex. Dillard Complex has ample open space for practice fields. Relocate current football practice fields and multiple athletic offices to Dillard. This would allow the current practice field to the west of Zable Stadium (an invaluable site) to be put to better use. 102 Residential New Campus (Fig. 68) Figure 68 - New Campus Residence Halls It is unlikely that the college community would shed any tears were the residential part of New Campus to simply vanish. None of the buildings are of exceptional quality, and while the College needs the space they provide from a functional perspective, few if any make a significant (positive) contribution to the William and Mary community. Wholesale bulldozing, while attractive, is unrealistic. Complete retention would seriously complicate any efforts to clarify the area and give it a central focus that is consistent with what William and Mary ?is.? Several questions must therefore be 103 answered: ?Of the buildings on New Campus, which can realistically be demolished?? and ?Which of the expendable buildings most inhibit spatial formation?? The athletic facilities are arguably the least expendable (fig. 65). William and Mary Hall (1970) is the proverbial ?800 lb. Gorilla? of New Campus. Demolishing and building a replacement for a 30 year old 168,000ft s field house that holds 12,000 people (that is in fairly good shape) is likely untenable. Any recommendations for this area should therefore incorporate the Hall into the overall plan. The Campus Recreation Center is the newest, least problematic, and probably highest quality building on this part of campus. As it is located on the periphery of the region, it presents few spatial problems to any attempt to clarify the region. The residence halls pose an interesting problem (fig. 68). It is probably easiest to justify removing a building if it is architecturally marginal, has become truly functionally inadequate, and creates spatial problems in an area. It will probably make little sense economically to continually renovate such a structure. None of the residence halls on New Campus solidly fulfill all of these criteria. Architecturally few have any merit, yet most are arguably still functional (or at least rehabilitable). The buildings of the Randolph Complex (1979-1988) are the newest residential facilities in the region (and represent some of the few apartment-style student residences on campus) and they are probably the most difficult to justifiably remove. The Fraternity and Botetourt Complexes (1971) are probably the most marginal of the structures. Yates and Dupont Hall (1962) occupy the middle ground ? they aren?t too bad, but neither are they 104 particularly worthy of preservation. Spatial considerations therefore become the primary factor used to evaluate these buildings. Spatially, the Botetourt and Randolph Complexes and Dupont Hall can be treated as a single group. They are all located on the southern periphery of the ?site? and are compactly situated adjacent to each other. Through use of ?prosthetic? additions and selective screening, these structures are probably the easiest to incorporate into a ?clarified? New Campus. Located on the eastern edge of the site and adjacent to the Wildflower Refuge, Yates Hall and the Fraternity Complex would not significantly inhibit the formation of a central civic space. Instead, they will severely impair the College?s ability to link the residential section to the Old Campus by way of the Zable Stadium site and will largely obstruct the formation of a ?private? residential zone that acknowledges the ravine system to the east. In that both offer a substandard, outdated residential experience, inefficiently occupy valuable sites, and obstruct the formation of a residential complex more appropriate for the College, it is recommended that both Yates and the Fraternity Complex be eventually demolished. The removal of Yates is the most critical to accomplishing short-term goals for this region. Also known as the ?Caf,? the Dinning Commons (1967, fig. 67, yellow building, left middle) is one of the most expendable buildings in the region. The least significant of the College?s three dining halls, it is situated by itself on a site far more prominent than it 105 deserves. It is not particularly large at one (primary) story (plus lower-level dining facilities for the football team), nor architecturally significant. Owing largely to the prominence of the site and the relatively small size of the structure, its removal is recommended. The only real complication involved would be the necessary construction of a replacement before the facility could be taken off-line. 106 Analysis Conclusion Based on the analysis of the College presented in this document, this thesis concludes that the residential section of New Campus is the most appropriate site for future College construction. It is more logical to improve an area that is clearly marginal than it is to improve a less problematic area (the problems of which could be solved with a less severe intervention). To summarize arguments presented elsewhere in this document, the residential section of New Campus: ? Is spatially the most problematic area of the campus. ? Contributes little to the William and Mary community. ? Is currently the least densely developed area of the College. ? Is the only campus zone that has no clear focus. ? Is the least pedestrian friendly area of the campus. 107 Additional Site Considerations Protected Areas The western edge of the College is an environmentally protected area (fig. 69). While the buildings proposed in this thesis do not infringe upon this area, restrictions may affect the establishment of a landscape garden in this area. Topography Significant topography exists on the eastern edge of the intervention area (fig. 69). While the proposed structures avoid heavily sloped areas, the site section will likely need to be addressed by either the building section or by the installation of a small retaining wall. Figure 69 - Approximate location of environmentally protected zone. 108 Figure 70 - Site Slopes 109 The Intervention ? A Campus for the Fourth Century The Master Plan Vision The following section presents an intervention that seeks to address the major spatial and organizational issues raised in this document in a way that is consistent with the shared values of the William and Mary Community. This thesis presents a master plan that seeks: ? To present a solution that is consistent with the values of the William and Mary Community, is sensitive to its context, and makes a positive civic and social contribution to the citizens of Williamsburg ? To create a campus ?zone? that exists as a natural extension of, and is clearly connected to, the greater campus fabric. ? To strengthen the connections between campus zones. ? To create an academic community with a variety of ?reasons for being? (that contains academic, residential, and supporting structures, i.e. is ?mixed use?). ? To create an ?immagable? region with an internal spatial logic and clear spatial hierarchy. ? To take better advantage of the major natural resources of the region ? the ravines of the Wildflower Refuge and Lake Matoaka. ? To create a place that will, in time, become an integral part of William and Mary?s ?image? in the hearts and minds of the Campus Community. 110 The Master Plan (fig. 71) Figure 71 - Proposed Master Plan for the College of William and Mary 111 General Description and Spatial Organization The Public Place The ?anchor piece? of the intervention presented in this thesis is the ?Lawn? (figs. 71, 72,91.92) ? the primary public place on West Campus (the term used in this document from this point forward to refer to the former ?residential New Campus?). The design goal was to create a place that complimented existing open ?places? on Campus, yet still possessed a unique identity. The dimensions for the Lawn were chosen after a contextual analysis revealed that the Sunken Garden is, in fact, a reference to the earlier Palace Green in Colonial Williamsburg (yet is clearly distinct from it). The new Lawn is likewise a reference to the Sunken Garden (fig. 72). The shared dimensions help the West Campus and Old Campus to relate and form complementary communities. They avoid becoming mere copies, as they are functionally and spatially distinct. Figure 72 - Major Civic Spaces to Scale 112 The Residential Realm ? Urban Scale Note: A general discussion of residence hall philosophy can be found in Appendix A. Western Quads The residential ?quads? (figs. 73,74,91) of the West Campus are two-sided. The west faces of the structures belong to the Public Realm as they form one side of the new Lawn. To the east the structures form a series of courtyards that create a more private ?residential? realm and help the College make a transition to a more sacred/natural realm (the ravines of the Wildflower Refuge). Like the Old Campus, West Campus therefore has a less formal open ?place? beyond the primary public place. While diagrammatically similar, however, the two areas are quite different in character. Figure 73 - West Campus Residence Halls 113 The buildings of the complex form a series of ?residential colleges? ? the residence halls are connected by ?academic? buildings (see figure 79). Not the ?property? of any one department or school, these facilities contain lecture, reception, social, classroom and other academic facilities and offices and are meant to help strengthen the living/learning experience by emphasizing that William and Mary is not only an academic institution devoted to intellectual growth, but is also a social construct that nurtures personal and social growth. This is further emphasized by the placement of the ?Faculty Row? on the other side of the ravine ? students and mentors share the Figure 74 - Residential Court Components. 114 amenity. The courtyards themselves alternate purpose and character. The courtyards emphasized in fig. 74 are ?public.? The grade-level floors of the flanking residence halls have ?public? amenities (cafes, student services, etc.). The remaining courtyards are more private and belong more to the residents of the associated residence halls. This is emphasized by the slightly elevated grade, the wrought iron railings/barrier and romantic landscaping (as opposed to the formal landscaping of the public courtyards) of these courtyards. The building massing of the residence halls also contributes to this delineation ? the ?private? courts are more enclosed. 115 Zable Stadium Site (fig. 75) Figure 75 - Zable Stadium Site 116 The Zable Stadium site (fig. 75), the new centerpiece of the stadium area, is intended to be the major urban feature of the central part of campus and the ?bridge piece? that connects the eastern and western halves of the College. Like the rest of the Master Plan, the area is multi-use. Student and faculty residences are situated around shared common spaces. The western side of Zable stadium is completed ? anchoring the space and becoming a new ?signature? building for the College (figs. 75,88). No longer simply an athletic structure, the building now contains reception and classroom space that help bring the structure into the daily lives of the members of the College community. It is an academic structure that ?just happens to have seats on the top.? 117 The Residential Realm ? Building Scale Various residence hall typologies were examined for this intervention (See Appendix A). The presented solution (figs. 75, 76, 87, 88, 91) seeks to combine the positive attributes of examined residence hall typologies in a way that is appropriate for the William and Mary campus. The proposed residential unit can be seen as a module ? the basic floor plate (with subtle variations), in some cases in combination with ?connector? academic buildings and/or special bases (fig. 76), is used throughout the West Campus Intervention (see fig. 79) In the non-apartment model, the proposed residential facility uses Figure 76 - Top to bottom: "Base" for West Campus residence halls containing public spaces, typical floorplate of new residence hall (social areas highlighted), apartment model of residence hall. 118 multiple common spaces on each floor (located adjacent to entrances/vertical circulation) foster community (fig. 76). While the entire floor-plate is ?open? to all of the residents of the floor, the spaces are arranged to break the (approximately) 52-person floor plate into more personal 15-25 person communities. The ?apartment model? is presented to demonstrate the suitability of the type for conversion to apartment-style student housing. Fa?ade illustrations and sectional details of the residential units can be seen in figs. 87 & 88. 119 Faculty Row ? William and Mary Faculty Housing (fig. 77) Figure 77 - Faculty Row This thesis advocates the creation of a ?Faculty Row? in the heart of the campus. The College has seen a steady migration of faculty members away from the main campus ? available private housing in the immediate vicinity of the College is relatively scarce and generally expensive. An increasing number of faculty members have gone so far as to become ?part-time? Williamsburg residents ? maintaining their primary residence in places as far away as Washington, DC, and residing in Williamsburg from Tuesday until Thursday in temporary quarters. This proposal involves re-using the existing lodges as private faculty residences and constructing five or more faculty duplexes along the eastern edge of the Wildflower 120 Refuge. This organization allows students and faculty members to ?share? the ravine, and creates a richer fabric along the ?new? east-west campus arterial ? forming courtyards that relate to the institutional structures at the Zable site. Such an area could not only be used as a recruitment tool for faculty by providing otherwise unobtainable quality housing in a unique setting, but would also strengthen the campus community by creating a ?residence faculty.? 121 The Fraternity Complex The 500+ beds of the former fraternity complex (see figure 86) have been relocated to thirteen ?grand houses? that occupy the northernmost part of West Campus. These structures allow for a more graceful spatial transition between the large institutional buildings of the College immediately to the south and the (comparatively) small private dwellings to the north. These structures, together with the other buildings north of the Lawn also allow the campus to make a spatial transition between the north-south Lawn and the northwest angle of Richmond Road. A similar device is used on Old Campus to address the triangular shape of the site (fig. 21). Finally, creating such a court would also move the majority of fraternity members away from their current location at the town/gown edge and in more towards the campus interior. Figure 78 - Fraternity Complex 122 Figure 79 - Post-Intervention Building Usage 123 The Natural Landscape West Campus abuts two major natural features ? the Wildflower Refuge and the Matoaka Woods/Lake Matoaka (fig. 80). Both of these features are underutilized by the College (the latter is mostly ignored). This thesis presents a detailed proposal for both regions that is modeled after English landscape garden principles. Figure 80 - "Natural" Areas at William and Mary The Wildflower Refuge The Wildflower Refuge (figs. 80, 81) is seen as a preserve by many members of the College Community, who believe that as such, it should be left largely untouched. The reality of the situation is that the area has already been subject to extensive human impact 124 in the form of the construction of multiple land bridges (and subsequent attempts to install drainage for the resultant pools of water) and exists as a swampy overgrown tangle much of the time. This thesis proposes a much more aggressive ?management? of the area and advocates the creation of an English landscape garden ? where the romantic, natural landscape is in fact a carefully controlled ?perfected? version of nature. This thesis develops the edges of the Refuge (discussed earlier in the ?Residential Realm? and ?Faculty Housing? portions of this document), which becomes a tremendous amenity for both the faculty and student residences on the periphery. The waterway is restored by removing the land bridges and the subsequent construction of ?real? bridges. ?Follies? are inserted and views are carefully considered (fig. 81). 125 Figure 81 - The Wildflower Refuge Intervention 126 The College Woods and Lake Matoaka The College Woods and Lake Matoaka (figs. 80, 82) are both underutilized amenities. In the case of the lake, it is neither easily accessible as access is largely blocked by Busch Field and the associated bleachers (an Astroturf field used primarily by athletics, not students), nor even visible from most parts of the campus. Certain regions of the College Woods on the East side of Matoaka are protected areas. This thesis recommends revisiting this issue by evaluating the contribution the area is presently making and weighing it against it?s potential contribution following careful landscaping and development. This thesis recommends removing Busch Field and creating an informal grass field Figure 82 - College Woods Intervention 127 in the same location (without bleachers) in its place. This thesis consolidates the varsity athletic facilities out at the Dillard Complex. (The College has already built a new baseball stadium at the location and this thesis has relocated the football practice field to this region.) Similar to Wildflower Refuge intervention, this thesis proposes careful landscaping of the region ? views are established, clearings made, and pathways are defined. 128 The Transition Zones ?Transition Zones? are a spatial weakness of the College. Intra-zonal connections are often abrupt. This intervention seeks to enhance spatial clarity at William and Mary by creating logical connections between campus zones. This issue has been discussed peripherally in previous sections. The following discussion consolidates the arguments. ?Fraternity Row? (fig. 78) replaces the surface parking, institutional dormitory-style fraternity houses and undefined fields of the northern part of a site with a circle of formal houses. These houses, larger in scale than the residential neighborhood to the north, yet significantly smaller than the institutional structures to the south help create a more graceful transition between the College and the town. These structures, together with the other buildings north of the Lawn also allow the campus to make a spatial transition between the north-south Lawn and the northwest angle of Richmond Road. A similar device is used on Old Campus to address the triangular shape of the site (fig. 21). The previously mentioned residential courtyards help the College make a transition from the highly formal and ordered Lawn to the ravines of the Wildflower Refuge. The spaces are smaller and more intimate. The landscaping gradually changes from ordered to natural. 129 The ?Gardens? (fig. 82) on the far western edge of campus are modeled after the English landscape gardens of the 18 th Century. Like the landscaping to the east of the new residential quads (but at a larger scale), the Gardens help the College make the transition between the academic and natural world ? in this case Lake Matoaka and the woods to the west. 130 The Entrances and Circulatory System The western section of campus currently has seven entrances (see figs. 35 & 36) ? five are primarily vehicular, two are solely pedestrian and all are ?back doors.? None of these entrances provide a sense of ?arrival? to the campus. The circulatory system leading from these entrances are not pedestrian friendly (figs. 35,36) and fail to clearly direct the pedestrian (or motorist) to any destination. This thesis addresses these issues by simplifying and rationalizing the circulation system. Pedestrians and cars are separated. Walkways help connect outdoor ?places? and link campus zones. Back doors are turned into gateways that lead through logical spatial sequences. The revised vehicular route on West Campus (figs. 83, 84, 85, 86) consists of four gateways at the cardinal points for two main roads. The gateways mark the transition between campus regions: on to and off of West Campus respectively via Ironbound Road to the West, Old Campus to the east, New Campus to the south and Richmond Road to the north. The northern entrance to West Campus is by way of Richmond Road and leads along the western edge of the College to the southern entrance ? passing through a gateway formed by additions to two existing buildings to New Academic Campus. Unlike the current north-south road, the new route avoids cutting the region in two and, like Old Campus, separates pedestrians and motorists by moving vehicular traffic to the periphery of the zone. 131 The western (Ironbound Road) entrance to the College begins at a green that alludes to the triangular areas between the Old Campus residence halls and academic buildings. A logical spatial sequence that visually terminates at the Alumni House (elevating its importance and acknowledging the alumni as an important part of the William and Mary community) leads the traveler through West Campus to Old Campus. Figure 83 - Existing (left) and Proposed (right) Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian routes were largely an afterthought on the New Residential Campus. Mostly roadside, cars parked curbside stood in for trees as liners (curbside parking, where it existed, served as the only buffer between pedestrians and high-speed vehicles). The new West Campus is largely pedestrian (figs. 83, 84). Pathways are typologically similar to those on Old Campus ? they have clear destinations, are lined, and help to define areas. 132 Figure 84 - Existing (left) and Proposed (right) Pedestrian Circulation Figure 85 - Campus Circulation Study for Master Plan. Vehicular in red, pedestrian in yellow. 133 Figure 86 - Existing and Proposed Roads Superimposed 134 The Impact The Master Plan presented in this document follows the recommendations put forth under the ?Building Assessment? section of this document. The overriding goal of this thesis is to ?heal? damage caused by poor planning choices by creating memorable places ? with a ?realistic? amount of intervention. Considerable progress towards the end-goal of this thesis can be realized with the re-routing of roads and landscape development (fig. 87). 135 Figure 87 - Location of Demolished Buildings and New Construction 136 Figure 88 - Thesis Presentation Drawings. Left to right: North-south section of Zable Court. North-south section of Zable Court showing transition into Wildflower Refuge. Zable Stadium fa?ade. 137 Figure 89 - Thesis Presentation Drawings. Left to Right: East-west section of Zable Court showing typical residence hall elevation. East-west Section of Zable Court showing transition to West Campus. 138 Figure 90 - Zable Stadium West Elevation Detail. 139 Figure 91 - Thesis Presentation Drawing. Perspective looking west from above stadium site. 140 Figure 92 - Thesis Presentation Drawing. Perspective looking west from above fraternity row. 141 Conclusion and Final Thoughts The ?conclusion? of this thesis is largely the design intervention ? as it ?concludes? that the presented features of the Master Plan are the best solution for the issues identified in the analysis section of this thesis. The scope of this thesis is admittedly broad ? many of the issues raised are discussed only peripherally and could easily be the subject of their own theses. The question of the appropriateness of the architectural style used in this intervention was raised during the oral defense. This is not directly addressed in this document as it is viewed as a non- issue by the author. The analysis portion of this document provides clues as to why this is the case. To the student of architecture, it often seems that today?s generation of practitioners is obsessed with developing an architecture ?appropriate? or symbolic of the ?age.? But the College of William and Mary is a place, not an ?age.? An attempt to re- interpret urban philosophy as it is applied to the region or to insert a radically ?modern? building into the Zable Stadium site might have been ?interesting? and, some might argue, is the type of thing a thesis should do. But such an approach would not have led to a design solution that is consistent with the shared values of the William and Mary Community. In the end, isn?t it more appropriate for a architectural thesis to determine what a place ?is? or ?wants to be? (which might or might not be radically different than what it ?is?) and determine the best way to help strengthen that image or attain that goal? Why change the fundamental character of a place because ?it would be interesting? when the community in the place in question is quite happy with the present character (and has 142 been for generations)? This is not to say that it would not be inappropriate to build any modern structure in the future at the College ? ?West Campus? could quite possibly accept a modern structure. But that should be the topic for another thesis. 143 Appendix A This thesis presents a detailed design for an on-campus residential facility to replace the Dillard Complex. Common residence hall types and their suitability for the proposed intervention is discussed below. The Traditional Residence Hall (fig. 93) Figure 93 - "Traditional" residence hall at William and Mary The traditional college dormitory will be familiar to anyone who has attended a residential college. These facilities organize shared student rooms off of a central corridor. Residents share kitchen, laundry, recreational, and occasionally bath facilities. Older examples of this type usually place student lounges on the entrance floor. Examples at William and Mary generally have a ceremonial entrance that leads to a grand foyer and the primary vertical circulation. Large formal lounges are located adjacent to the primary entrance (this was to accommodate social patterns of a bygone era where mixers, dances, and the need for ?reception? rooms made such spaces necessary). 144 Construction quality is generally high ? walls are plaster as opposed to exposed cinderblock. This type has several drawbacks. They are often perceived as feeling ?cold? and ?institutional.? Spatial utilization is not particularly efficient. Raised entrances cause accessibility issues. Examples that locate all of the lounges on one floor make the use of such facilities inconvenient for residents on upper levels. William and Mary has tried to address the latter issue by converting rooms on each floor into small lounges in several facilities. Perhaps ironically, the age of the facilities help them to address the first. Features such as high ceilings, marble floors, plaster walls, and decorative moulding help the students connect to the history and tradition of the school, make the facilities feel special, and in so doing, make them feel ?warmer.? Perhaps the most important attribute of this type is their ability to encourage social interaction by limiting the amenities offered in a single room. 145 The ?Clustered? Model The cluster-type residence hall (fig. 94) is found in the Fraternity and Botetourt Complexes on New Campus. The positive and negative attributes of this type are similar to those of the traditional double-loaded corridor. As employed at William and Mary, these structures have several additional negative aspects: While organizing rooms around a central bath is a fairly efficient utilization of space, the result (a warren-like plan with dead-end corridors) feels cramped and confining. The bath facilities, buried at the building core, lack adequate ventilation. They tend to remain steamy and damp? spilling humidity into the halls. The exposed cinder-block walls and Linoleum tile floors (both common in other residence halls on New Campus) give the buildings a cold, institutional feeling. Large entrance spaces with ceremonial stairs are absent. While less economical, these features tend to make residence halls feel ?special? ? even if the individual student rooms are otherwise fairly plain. Figure 94 - "Cluster" parti residence hall 146 The Modern ?Apartment? Model While not presently found at William and Mary, this type (fig. 95) is becoming increasingly common. The push to construct such facilities seems to stem from administrative fears of losing students (and the associated income) to off-campus facilities that offer a more home-like living environment than that of the traditional residence hall. Figure 95 - Apartment-style residence hall at University of Maryland, College Park While the goal of offering students a more comfortable residential experience is admirable, it should not be met at the expense of the social environment of the traditional residence hall. Students in such structures no longer need to use shared facilities ? the lounges, kitchens and laundry facilities have all been moved into the individual unit. With high-speed internet access and cable television, students have little reason to leave the apartment and become part of a larger residential community. The small size of the typical unit (four residents) can hardly be considered an enriching social environment. These facilities are most appropriate for older students who have already established social groups. As a primary goal of this thesis is community formation, the negative aspects of the social environment promoted by the typical incarnation of this model makes it unsuitable as the primary residential model for William and Mary. 147 The Single-Unit House Model The ?grand house? (fig. 96) is most commonly used for Greek housing on college campuses. The example shown (a fraternity house at the University of Maryland, College Park) houses approximately 40 students. In the Greek system, the type is used specifically for its ability to foster social interaction and strengthen community in a large group of indiviuals. While in this case the type stregthens bonds in a pre-existing community with a shared group identity, it is easy to imagine that the residence itself becomes the foundation for a social group. As the units age and establish there own identities, the inherited history of the units and that of their previous residents could Figure 96 - Fraternity House at University of Maryland, College Park 148 be an important source of group identity and shared tradition. The type is not without significant drawbacks. It is more economical to build larger ?traditional? residence halls. Perhaps more importantly for William and Mary, housing large numbers of students using this model would require many buildings. As so many structures would dilute the collegiate image of the area, it is not a large-scale design solution that would be appropriate for William and Mary. 149 An Alternate Approach ? The Institutional Group House This thesis investigates the use of a large facility that contains multiple ?group houses? for new residence facilities. The premise is that this type of structure has many of the positive and few of the negative attributes of the previously discussed partis. This thesis will investigate several interpretations of this type. An example of this approach was investigated by the University of Maryland in the early 1970?s as part of a residence hall renovation study (fig. 97). The proposal would have converted the individual rooms of a traditional residential facility into group apartments for approximately 13 people. Studies at the time suggested that such units would help foster a sense of group identity and, by allowing a greater feeling of ?ownership,? would encourage the upkeep of the facilities by its residents (confirm source). The following diagram presents the concept: 150 Figure 97 - Proposed Conversion of Kent Hall at the University of Maryland, College Park from a "traditional" dorm to multiple 13-person houses. The great row houses of England (Royal Crescent, Paragon, etc.) offer another interpretation of this type. Combining several houses (such as those discussed earlier in this section) into one larger structure would allow the College to strengthen both its institutional image and academic community (fig. 98). Figure 98 - Row House Concept. 151 Residential Program Requirements Program specifics are to be worked out during the course of thesis investigation. General requirements are based on relocating the beds at the Dillard Complex to Main Campus and replacing demolished facilities in kind and are as follows: Dillard Relocation - 300 Beds Fraternity Replacement -500 beds Yates Replacement - 266 Beds Total beds to be constructed - 1066+ Proposed facilities will be a maximum of five stories tall (including an attic and basement level). Fraternity facilities will not be designed in depth. With the exception of a replacement facility for the Dining Commons (40,000 ft 2 ) proposed academic and support facilities will, for the most part, not contain specific programs. 152 Appendix B ? Building Area on New Campus Academic New Campus ? Student Support/Cultural Buildings Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage Adair Gymnasium159532 31906 Muscarelle Museum145442 29088 Phi Beta Kappa Hall (Theater)334932 66986 Swem Library591584(3+B)236632 Total 123148 Parking Areas ? Academic New Campus Total Square Footage Common Glory Lot113928 Jamestown Road/PBK Lot167000 Jones Lot6890 Millington Lot5837 Swem Lot19357 Total Academic New Campus Parking (Does not include significant street- side parking on Campus Drive) 313012 Academic New Campus ? Academic Buildings Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage Andrews Hall158732 31746 Jones Hall137695(4+B)68845 Millington Hall245515(3+B,A)110479 Morton Hall137695(4+B)68845 Rogers Hall232252 46450 Small Hall256474 102588 Total 116834428953 153 Residential New Campus Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Ft 2 & Ft 2 /pp TypeNumber of Beds Botetourt Complex ? Building 1 ? Building 2 ? Building 3 ? Building 4 ? Building 5 Total 6621 6564 3683 6616 6565 30049 3 3 3 3 3 90132/ 201 CDLC CDLC CDLC CDLC CDLC 449 Dupont Hall201683 60504/ 271 DLC278 Fraternity Complex ? Structure 1 ? Structure 2 ? Structure 3 Total 11625 9345 7140 28110 3 3 3 34875 28035 21420 84330/ 168 CDLC CDLC CDLC 500 Randolph Complex ? Structure 1 ? Structure 2 ? Structure 3 ? Structure 4 ? Structure 5 Total 9293 3801 6105 4527 10596 34322 3 3 3 3 3 102966 A CDLC CDLC CDLC A Yates Hall130863 39258/ 147 DLC266 Total125735234967 Other Buildings on Residential New Campus Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage William and Mary Hall (Arena)713012 142602 Residential New Campus ? Student Support Buildings Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage Dining Commons200042 40008 Recreation Center308322 Total 50836 154 Appendix C ? Building Area on Old Campus OLD CAMPUS ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage James Blair Hall (1/2 Academic, 1/2 Administrative) 65314(3+A) Brafferton23744(2+B,A) Blow Memorial Hall (1/2 Academic, 1/2Administrative) 106823(2+B) Total of all administrative buildings on the ?main diamond? of Old Campus 19587 ?College Apartments?44783(2+A)? Houses on South Boundary Street ? House 1 ? House 2 Total of S. Boundary St. Houses 1189 1189 2378 1 1 1189 1189 Houses on Jamestown Road ? House 1 ? House 2 ? House 3 ? House 4 ? House 5 ? House 6 ? House 7 ? House 8 ? House 9 ? House 10 ? House 11 1186 1509 1364 1223 1508 1910 2477 1512 1156 1986 1389 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 OLD CAMPUS ACADEMIC BUILDINGS Area of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage James Blair Hall (1/2 Academic, 1/2 Adminitrative) 65314 (3+A)26128 Blow Memorial Hall (1/2 Academic, 1/2Administrative) 106823 (2+B)32046 Ewell Hall14,4344 (2+B,A)57736 Tercentenary Hall13,1184(3+B)52472 Tucker Hall11,3644(2+B,A)45456 Tyler Hall128854(3+A)51540 Washington Hall144904(3+A)57960 Wren Hall103914(2+B,A)41564 TOTAL93,895N/A364902 155 Total of Jamestown Road Houses21965 Presidents House23744(2+B,A) Total square footage of all administrative buildings inside Jamestown Road/Richmond Road boundary of Old Campus 48408N/A Physical Plant BuildingsArea of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage Motor Pool Building140881 14088 Old Printing Building?73931 7393 Power Plant49401 4940 Total Square Footage26421 26421 Student Activity BuildingsArea of Footprint Number of Floors Total Square Footage Campus Center (Trinkle Hall)439343 131802 Off Campus Student Center16812 3322 University Center380813(2+B)114243 Total Square Footage83696 249367 Parking Areas ? Old CampusTotal Square Footage Blow Hall (Richmond Road Lot)16661 Blow Hall (South Side)2200 Campus Center Lot & Facilities Lot71843 Jefferson Lot2200 Old Dominion (South Lot)12000 Old Dominion (West Lot)5171 University Center/Health Center33852 Zable Stadium62000 Total Old Campus Parking On the Periphery of Old Campus 19371 Total Old Campus Parking205927 156 OLD CAMPUS RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Area of Footprint # of Floors/# apparent floors/ # floors w/dorm rooms Ft 2 /StudentTypeBeds Barrett Hall128925(3+B,A) 364460/ 358 SDLC180 Bryan Hall72895(3+B,A) 436445/ 319 SDLC114 Camm Hall3,7985(3+B,A) 415192/ 275 SDLC69 Chandler Hall125565(3+B,A) 362780/ 348 SDLC144 Dawson Hall37985(3+B,A) 315192/ 303 SDLC50 Jefferson Hall102875(3+B,A) 451435/ 282 SDLC182 Landrum Hall106025(3+B,A) 451435/ 233 SLDC220 Lodges (Total of 8) 146081 14608/ 260 H 56 Madison Hall37985(3+B,A) 415192/ 230 SDLC66 Monroe Hall102875(3+B,A) 351435/ 372 SDLC138 Old Dominion Hall 102875(3+B,A) 351435/ 428 SDLC120 Stith Hall37985(3+B,A) 415192/ 223 SDLC68 Total square footage of all residential buildings inside Jamestown Road/Richmond Road boundary of Old Campus 104,000N/A Brown Hall52875(3+B,A) 326435/ 367 SDLC72 Hunt Hall56333(2+A) 316899/ 272 SDLC62 Language Houses ? House 1 ? House 2 1741 1741 2 2 H 157 ? House 3 Total of all language houses 1741 5223 2 H Reves Hall78523() 3 SDLC53 Sororities ? House 1 ? House 2 ? House 3 ? House 4 ? House 5 ? House 6 ? House 7 ? House 8 ? House 9 ? House 10 Total of all Sororities 2134 1963 2007 2352 2114 2114 2114 2114 2114 2114 21140 3(2+A) 3 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) 3(2+A) H H H H H Talliferro Hall57563(2+A)DLC Total Square Footage 154891 Average Number of Square Feet Per Student in residence halls:307 (This number includes utilities/circulation/lounges, etc.) Total Target Square Feet For 300 Person Dormitory Complex: 92100 158 Endnotes 1. Campus, An American Planning Tradition by Paul Turner. Copyright 1984 by 2. Paul Turner. Published by MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. ibid. 6. ibid. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. Williamsburg: The Genesis of a Republican Civic Order From Under the Shadow of the Catalpas, by Jorge Hernandez. Published in The New City #2, The American City. Published by the University of Miami School of Architecture, Copyright 1994. 10. ibid. 11. William and Mary Campus History. 1984 Dissertation by David Sacks. Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 12. ibid. 13. ibid. 14. ibid. 15. ibid. 16. ibid. 17. ibid. 18. ibid. 19. ibid. 20. ibid. 21. ibid. 22. ibid. 23. ?College of William and Mary? by Charles M. Robinson Architects, Richmond, Virginia. Promotional booklet published in the 1920?s. Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 24. William and Mary Campus History. 1984 Dissertation by David Sacks. Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 25. ibid. 26. ibid. 27. Modernism in America 1937-1941 ? A Catalog and Exhibition of Four Architectural Competitions. Edited By J. Kornwolf. Published by the Joseph and Margaret Muscarelle Museum of Art. Copyright 1985 28. 25A. William and Mary Campus History. 1984 Dissertation by David Sacks. Swem a. Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 29. ?Building Files? Swem Library Special Collections 30. Dearstyne to A.D. Chandler, Feb 14, 1954, in A.D.C. Office Files, ?PBK Hall (New)? 31. ibid. 159 32. William and Mary Campus History. 1984 Dissertation by David Sacks. Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 33. (Williamsburg: n.p., January 15, 1951); Walford and Wright, Architects, Development plan of the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA (May, 1960; revised Feb., 1961) p.2, in A.D.C. Office Files, ?Walford and Wright, Architects. 34. ibid. 35. ibid. 36. ibid. 37. William and Mary Campus History. 1984 Dissertation by David Sacks. Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 38. Suburban Nation by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater Zyberk 39. ibid. 40. William and Mary Campus History. 1984 Dissertation by David Sacks. Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William and Mary. 41. (Williamsburg: n.p., January 15, 1951); Walford and Wright, Architects, Development plan of the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA (May, 1960; revised Feb., 1961) p.2, in A.D.C. Office Files, ?Walford and Wright, Architects. 42. Building Files, Swem Library Special College, College of William and Mary 43. Interview with Deb Boykin, Dept. of Residence Life, College of William and Mary. Conducted by Author. 160 Credits Fig. 1,Campus, An American Planning Tradition by Paul Turner. Copyright 1984 by Paul Turner. Published by MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Fig. 2. ibid. Fig. 3. ibid. Fig. 4. ibid. Fig. 5. Jack Baker Fig. 6. Williamsburg: The Genesis of a Republican Civic Order From Under the Shadow of the Catalpas, by Jorge Hernandez. Published in The New City #2, The American City. Published by the University of Miami School of Architecture, Copyright 1994. Fig. 7. ibid. Fig. 8. ibid. Fig. 9. So Good a Design by J. Kornwolfe. Published by the College of William and Mary Joseph and Margaret Muscarelle Museum of Art, 1989 Fig. 10. Williamsburg: The Genesis of a Republican Civic Order From Under the Shadow of the Catalpas, by Jorge Hernandez. Published in The New City #2, The American City. Published by the University of Miami School of Architecture, Copyright 1994. Fig. 11.ibid. Fig. 12. ibid. Fig. 13. ibid. Fig. 14. Building Files, Swem Library Special Collections Fig. 15. Jack Baker Fig. 16. Romance and Renaissance of the College of William and Mary. Swem Library Special Collections Fig. 17-26. Jack Baker Fig. 27-31Building File, Swem Library Special Collection Figs. 32-38 Jack Baker Fig. 39.1987 Master Plan by Johnson, Johnson and Riley Fig. 40.Jack Baker Fig. 41,42.Master Plan by Sasaki and Associates. Photo illustration by Jack Baker Fig. 43.Jack Baker Figs. 44-47.Foundation Diagrams by Ayers Saint Gross Architects, Baltimore, MD. Usage diagram by Jack Baker. Fig. 48.Jack Baker Fig. 49. Ayers Saint Gross Architects, Baltimore, MD Figs. 50-90.Jack Baker Fig. 91.Swem Library Archives Fig. 92.Jack Baker Fig. 93-96.University of Maryland archives 161 Bibliography The College in the years 1861-1865 by the President Benjamin S. Ewell,? in ?Four Forms,? Swem Library, College of William and Mary pp.295-296; Vital Facts, pp. 15-16 Charles M. Robinson Architects, Richmond, Virginia, ?College of William & Mary? Promotional booklet published in the 1920?s. Swem Archives. Dearstyne to A.D. Chandler, Feb 14, 1954, in A.D.C. Office Files, ?PBK Hall (New)? ?Report of the Facilities, College of William and Mary; Williamsburg, Virginia, As Filed with the Federal Security Agency Office of Education, Washington 25, D.C. ?Master Plan Aids Freedom of Design,? Daily Press (May 29, 1960), in Arch. S. ?B. &G.:D.&E. Plans;? Walford and Wright, Architects, Development Plan, p.2 Paschall, Highlights of Progress, P.12; ?Master Plan Aids Freedom.? (Williamsburg: n.p., January 15, 1951); Walford and Wright, Architects, Development plan of the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA (May, 1960; revised Feb., 1961) p.2, in A.D.C. Office Files, ?Walford and Wright, Architects.