|
|
|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
|
STANDARD 8: PHYSICAL RESOURCES
|
|
Description Appraisal Projection
|
DescriptionThe Yale University campus occupies 200 acres in New Haven, Connecticut. It consists of 220 buildings with a total of more than 11 million gross square feet of space, of which approximately 50 percent is used for instruction, research and related academic activities and 30 percent provides dormitories, apartments and other housing for undergraduate and graduate students. The campus has two main components. The Central Campus encompasses Yale College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Schools of Architecture, Art, Divinity, Drama, Forestry and Environmental Studies, Law, Management and Music. To the south, the Medical Campus has the Schools of Medicine and Nursing. Approximately three miles to the west are the University’s principal outdoor athletic facilities at Yale Field, which occupy 150 acres, and a Golf Course and Natural Preserve which occupy 520 acres. Properties owned outside New Haven include the following:
The University’s equipment inventory (defined as equipment costing $2,000 or more) consists of more than 40,000 items with an acquisition cost of more than $266 million. The largest categories of equipment by far, are laboratory instruments ($104 million) and computer equipment ($100 million). A detailed inventory of this equipment is maintained in a Movable Equipment Inventory System that is managed by the Plant Accounting Office. All departmental equipment acquisitions and transfers are entered into this system, and departments are surveyed every two years and asked to verify and update the list of equipment assigned to them. The Plant Accounting staff also carries out occasional spot checks to ensure the accuracy of the data. Classrooms and Teaching Facilities There are 530 classrooms, seminar rooms, lecture halls, academic auditoria, studios for art, drama and music students, and teaching laboratories on the central campus. These facilities occupy over 300,000 square feet of space. Most of these classrooms are controlled by the schools and departments in which they are located, but 112 are controlled fully or jointly by the FAS Registrar’s Office which schedules them for use for classes during the day and special events and student activities in the evenings. A Classroom Committee administers a budget of $250,000 per year to provide special equipment and furnishings for classrooms, to direct the ongoing modernization and modifications of classrooms, and to review faculty and student needs for special equipment and teaching facilities. Academic Media & Technology maintains a Web site that lists the basic characteristics and equipment in a growing number of “technology classrooms” that contain video projectors, computers, and network connections. Facilities Maintenance and Management The maintenance and operation of all of Yale’s buildings and grounds are the responsibility of the Office of Facilities, which has a staff of 630 FTE’s and an annual operating budget (1998–1999) of $82.6 million allocated across six major departments.
The Office of Facilities also manages a capital budget and oversees capital renovation projects that will total almost $300 million in 1999–2000. Facilities maintains a Space Inventory System that includes detailed records on all of the University's buildings and properties. Future development of this system will link it to the CAD Building Assignment Plans maintained by the Facilities Planning Office, an on-line Campus Map, and other University databases, such as Human Resources, Grants & Contracts, and the financial systems. Eventually, schools and departments will be allowed to maintain department-related data fields in this central database. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
Capital Budget and Major Renovations The largest group of Yale’s principal buildings were constructed in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and a significant number are considerably older. Many of these buildings were built in a lavish, monumental style, and present particular challenges to maintenance. Ten years ago, the University undertook a lengthy survey of capital needs as seen by many departments. Based on the results of that survey, a senior level faculty- administration committee produced a five-year draft capital plan entitled Rebuilding Yale: The Next Five Years. That plan represented the first attempt in many years to make a comprehensive assessment of Yale’s capital needs and to reach beyond the usual one- year capital budgets. It provided a basis for a substantial increase in Yale’s capital expenditures, as well as an on-going series of planning studies. During the decades of the 1970’s and most of the 1980’s, Yale’s capital expenditures (in 1997–98 dollars) averaged around $30 million per year. For the years 1989 through 1995, capital expenditures averaged more than $70 million per year, and over the past four years these expenditures have grown steadily from $118 million in 1995–96 to $130 in 1996–97, $180 million in 1997–98, $180 million in 1998–99, and $285 million (budgeted) in 1999–2000. Funding for these expenditures comes from four basic sources: debt (the major source by far, totaling $210 million in 1999–2000); gifts; the University’s growing central operating budget allocation of capital (nearly $20 million in 1999–2000, an amount which will increase to $35 million by 2004–05 according to the University’s long- term financial plan); and other sources, such as reserve funds. While there has been some new construction during this period, the largest portion of the capital expenditures has been devoted to the renovation of the University’s aging buildings. This level of investment demonstrates the University’s continuing commitment to modernizing its buildings in a manner consistent with today’s academic, residential and research demands. In 1990, the University engaged the engineering firm of Parsons Brinkerhoff to conduct a comprehensive building conditions survey, on the basis of which a ten-year capital maintenance program was developed with an annual budget of $50 million. As the planning program progressed, its focus grew from single buildings or building systems into a more comprehensive renovation approach, which includes programmatic enhancements made possible by gifts, with a resulting increase in the annual capital budget. The incorporation of these programmatic objectives required a larger planning context, and so in 1993, the Office of University Planning embarked on a series of Area and Facilities Planning Studies in those areas targeted for renovations, where program planning and funding were integrated. To date, the following five sectors of the campus have been topics of focused study: (1) Residential facilities, including the residential colleges and the Old Campus dormitories; (2) Science Hill; (3) the Arts Area, which encompasses the Schools of Architecture, Art and Drama, the History of Art department, the Arts Library, the Yale Art Gallery, the Center for British Art, and more recently, the Digital Media Center for the Arts; (4) Payne Whitney Gymnasium; and (5) Sterling Memorial Library. These latter two studies focused only on single buildings, but their sheer size, both larger than 500,000 square feet, and the diversity of their space and usage, prompted each to be treated as an area of its own. In addition, facilities needs in other areas, such as the School of Medicine, the School of Law, and non-residential buildings on the Old Campus (most notably Linsly-Chittenden Hall) have been the topic of separate studies. The planning efforts in these areas were conducted by senior-level faculty- administration committees (and included students in the case of Residential Facilities) supported by the staff of the Facilities Planning Office and outside consultants. The studies were conceived as mechanisms for developing priorities and rationally sequenced renovation strategies within manageable sectors of the campus—sectors linked by common programmatic and/or geographical characteristics. In order to integrate the separate area plans and assure that planning is done in an organized and coordinated way, the University decided in 1996 to develop a comprehensive planning framework to guide its commitments, to chart its future, and to plan the best use of available resources and opportunities. Vice President and Secretary Linda Lorimer and Vice President for Finance and Administration Joseph Mullinix formed the Campus Planning Group to coordinate the planning efforts of their offices and provide a forum for the discussion of planning issues. In January 1997, the firm of Cooper, Robertson & Partners, a New York City Architecture/Urban Design firm, was engaged as the Campus Planning Consultant on this project. The purpose of this on-going project has been to develop a long range planning perspective for the physical development of the Yale campus and its links with the urban context of New Haven. It will ensure that the University’s facilities plans are designed not only to achieve a unified University, but to establish an academic setting that is well integrated with the City of New Haven. It will also articulate a set of principles and develop a set of planning guidelines that will provide a context for the development of individual projects over the next twenty to twenty-five years. One of the primary objectives of the Campus Planning project has been to seek ways to make more efficient use of existing renewable buildings and to replace only those no longer able to make a contribution. Preserving the nature and character of the present Yale buildings as much as possible is an important priority. The vast majority of the University’s massive capital investment has been renovation rather than new construction, and has focused on the restoration of some of the University’s finest buildings. In 1998, the University reached an important agreement with the New Haven Preservation Trust for the restoration of several University-owned houses of architectural and historic significance. Over the next few years, the University will spend many millions of dollars in the restoration and preservation of its unique architectural heritage.
|
|
Description Appraisal Projection
|
AppraisalYale's campus encompasses an extraordinary quantity, quality and diversity of physical resources that support the teaching and research needs of the faculty, the quality of life and education of students, and the daily activities of administrative staff. How well these resources meet the needs of faculty, students and staff and support the institutional mission depend on four interrelated factors: (1) the amount of space available; (2) the design of that space and its equipment infrastructure; (3) the maintenance of the space and equipment; and (4) the assignment of space to meet the highest priority needs. While the overall amount of space at the University seems adequate to meet current programmatic priorities, there is growing pressure for expansion in certain areas of the campus and for certain types of space. The most urgent space needs have been met through the area planning studies and comprehensive renovation projects already under way or planned, such as the following:
Despite this expansion, there are unmet space needs and a desire for expansion in other areas of the campus, of which three deserve high-priority attention. First, there is an urgent need for additional space in the physical sciences and engineering, and in the social sciences, as a result of program expansion as well as the changing nature of research in some fields. The Science Hill Planning Study has addressed the needs in the physical sciences and produced a long-term plan for meeting those needs, as well as for renovating and modernizing all of the buildings on Science Hill. The degree of Yale’s commitment in this area will be apparent from the magnitude of its planned expenditures: a $450 million plan for comprehensive building and renovations on Science Hill; and a new research building for Engineering, as well as extensive renovation of existing engineering research space. In the social sciences, additional space also will be needed, either from new construction or acquisition. This expansion will be guided by an area study for "lower Hillhouse Avenue." Second, there is an urgent need for additional faculty offices in the central campus, primarily in humanities departments and programs. This has been brought about by several developments: an increase in the number of full-time non-ladder faculty who teach introductory foreign language courses; a modest expansion of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as a result of successful recruitments and selected program expansion; new programs such as the Center for Language Study, the Office of International Education; the need for offices where graduate student Teaching Fellows can meet with students; and the growing demand by retired faculty for on-campus offices and support. Fortunately, it appears that most of these needs can be met in one of three ways: by making better use of existing space (including vacant and soon-to-be-vacant space at 451 College Street and 143 Elm Street) after it is renovated and reassigned; by moving certain programs and departments to less-central locations; and by improving the design and quality of space through renovation. Third, as noted elsewhere in this report, the amount and type of space devoted to support undergraduate extracurricular activities, especially in drama, is inadequate given the extraordinary level of student interest and activity in these areas. Fortunately, construction will soon be completed for a new student theater at 53 Wall Street, which will be devoted to classes, rehearsals and performances by students in the Theater Studies program. A second theater space, this one assigned primarily to extracurricular groups and activities, is now in the planning stages for Broadway. The renovation of the residential colleges will also create more and better space for a wide range of student activities, including the performing arts.
Building Design, Infrastructure and Equipment The adequacy of Yale's physical resources, and in particular its buildings, for meeting current programmatic needs and priorities depends in part of the amount of space available, but equally on the design of that space and the equipment it contains. Many of the University's buildings were designed more than sixty years ago and have undergone relatively little in the way of redesign or modernization since. Yet the activities that take place in those spaces–the list of academic departments and programs; the way teaching and learning, research and scholarship take place; the array of student activities and services; the nature of academic and administrative support–are constantly evolving. Only in recent years has the University undertaken a comprehensive process to modernize its physical resources to assure that they not only meet programmatic needs but also comply with all legal and regulatory requirements and preserve the University's unique architectural heritage. This has been accomplished through three separate programs. The first is the capital renovation program through which the University undertakes comprehensive renovations of its buildings. Primary responsibility for managing the process resides with the University Planning Office and the Project Management Group at the Office of Facilities. Most of the design work for these major projects is provided by outside architects, who are reviewed by and work closely with advisory committees consisting of occupants (including students and faculty) and staffed by the Office of Facilities. The design focuses on the deferred maintenance needs of the building, the programmatic needs of its occupants, the requirements of all relevant building and life safety codes for things like handicapped access, fire safety, and environmental health and safety, energy costs, and "life cycle" costs of equipment maintenance. The University has also continued to attend to its utility infrastructure, completing in 1998 a new power plant to cogenerate electricity, steam and chilled water; work is now under way to replace steam and chilled water lines throughout the campus. Guidance and oversight of this program are provided at several levels, beginning with the Capital Programs Management Group, which includes representatives of all Facilities departments, the Office of the Provost, the Finance Office, and the Development Office. This group meets weekly to review all proposed capital projects (that is, projects with a total budget of more than $100,000). Larger projects (those with a projected cost in excess of $1,000,000) are reviewed by the Capital Subcommittee of the University Budget Committee (which includes members of the faculty as well as deans of several schools). The oversight and management of these projects seems fully adequate. Oversight and approval of the financial plan through which this program is funded are provided by the Office of the Provost, the University Budget Committee, and the Finance Committee of the Yale Corporation. In addition to comprehensive building-wide renovation projects, a number of smaller, more focused projects are funded and overseen by specially designated committees.
Management and Maintenance of Buildings There is a persistent sense that the University does not spend enough resources on the regular maintenance of its buildings, and does not spend them well. Clearly, the capital renovation program—the process by which renovations have been planned, the resources that have been allocated to major capital projects, and indeed the results of those efforts—has been an enormous success, and can be pointed to with pride and satisfaction. There has been a clear and firm commitment to improving the general quality of life through big projects. Yet at times the campus seems preoccupied with all it is undertaking and accomplishing in the way of major building renovations, to the detriment of other buildings and needs that are falling through the cracks. The funding and attention devoted to these renovations must not be achieved at the cost of other, smaller projects, or of the regular maintenance of buildings that have not yet been renovated. Change is needed, and in some cases is under way, in two general areas. First, the University needs a more systematic and inclusive process for planning and evaluating the regular care of its buildings and for determining the appropriate level of funding for facilities maintenance, similar perhaps to the careful process for the development of the capital budget. Second, the Facilities Office must continue to look for ways to achieve greater efficiencies in its building maintenance programs. This could include an increased use of outside contractors, the use of outside consultants, and the expanded use of techniques such as bench-marking for building maintenance and cleaning services. The adequacy of Yale's physical resources to serve its institutional mission requires careful and thoughtful planning to assure that the University has the right amount and right kind of space, that it is well maintained, and that it is used to meet the highest priority needs.
|
|
Description Appraisal Projection
|
ProjectionThe continued improvement of Yale's physical resources will require investments in three critical areas. The commitment to the renovation of the University's aging buildings, guided by a broadly inclusive planning process that considers both programmatic priorities and financial constraints, must stay the course. This program not only addresses deferred maintenance needs but also redesigns and modernizes spaces to meet current programmatic priorities. It brings buildings into compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements, it rationalizes and prioritizes the use of space, it improves energy efficiency, it preserves the historical and architectural significance of the buildings, and in some cases it includes the construction or acquisition of additional space. The financial investment is significant, and requires tradeoffs with other priorities, yet the pace cannot slacken. This program must be guided by the campus planning framework currently under development, including area plans. Furthermore, at least one new area plan–for the Social Sciences as well as Engineering and Applied Sciences on lower Hillhouse Avenue–must be initiated within the next year. All of these plans must be constantly reviewed and revised in recognition that some programmatic needs–for example the use of information technology in teaching, research, and University administration–will continue to change. Maintenance of Unrenovated Buildings It took years for the University's buildings to get to their current run-down condition, and it will take years to fix all the problems through comprehensive renovations. In the meantime, the University must address the deferred and regular maintenance needs of unrenovated buildings, those which must wait their turn. These building, and the programs they house, cannot be allowed to deteriorate through lack of attention. That maintenance program must be complemented with a more systematic space planning process, which focuses on the efficient use and careful assignment of existing spaces. A commitment, and a plan, to improve the regular maintenance of all University buildings, including unrenovated ones, will be one of the most important outcomes of this self-study. Discussions between the Office of the Provost and the Office of Facilities regarding such a plan are already underway. Maintenance of Renovated Buildings Perhaps the University's biggest challenge will be to protect its extraordinary investment in the renovation of its buildings through a sufficient commitment to the regular, on- going maintenance and management of those buildings. The current maintenance budget has more to do with history than with needs. The University has developed a careful and thoughtful process by which the capital budget is planned. In much the same way, it needs a more systematic process for planning and evaluating the regular care of its renovated buildings, the amount of resources allocated to that purpose, and the efficiency with which those resources are used. The measure of how successfully the University meets this challenge will be the annual increases in the operating and capital budgets.
LINKS TO STANDARDS: | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 | |
|
Description Appraisal Projection
|
|