 |
 |
| The Next Step began with a thorough analysis of the campus as it is today
and evaluations of the observations in the 1995 Plan. Both today’s campus
conditions and future proposals included in the 1995 Plan were analyzed in
terms of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, open space, topography,
location of uses, and building pattern. |
| |
| A key vehicular feature of
today’s campus is the emergence of a loop road. The 1995 Master
Plan accentuated the loop by proposing standards for development based
upon the concept of a “boulevard.” Like those at the University of
California Los Angeles or at George Mason University, loop roads help
create a pedestrian-friendly core by limiting most of the automobile and
service traffic to the campus perimeter. Loop systems also
distribute traffic to multiple access routes thereby reducing traffic
impacts on the external road network. Today’s loop road, however,
and the one proposed in the 1995 Plan, are actually not pure loops
because University City Boulevard, an |
 |
| external street, is
incorporated into the University’s loop. A totally internal loop
would make it a far more appropriate, safe vehicular circulation system
on campus. Parking is fairly well distributed along the loop
today, though much of it is in surface lots. As the campus grows
and parking garages are constructed, it will be increasingly important
to distribute new garages along the loop to serve newly developed areas
for academic and residential buildings. U.S. Highway 29 is a major
corridor northwest of the campus core. Today this corridor is
remote from the campus; however, as the student body grows and mass
transit is implemented, a vehicular connection through to the main
campus to U.S. Highway 29 may be desirable. The traffic report
suggests this connection could be beneficial in Phase 3 of the plan. |
| |
| Today’s campus has a moderately successful pedestrian system within the
academic core and this system could be extended to the north along a new
axis more amenable to building development. On the east/west axis there
is a constraint in the core area at the Cone Center where clear pedestrian
access through to the West Quadrangle and Belk Gymnasium is blocked. With
extensive renovation, the Student Activity Center should be more strongly
tied into the pedestrian network in the future. Two locations with
substantial automobile/pedestrian conflicts have been addressed in the
plan; Van Landingham Drive at Mary Alexander Drive and the crossing of
N.C. Highway 49 at the existing main entrance. The 1995 Plan proposed a
new bridged north/south promenade on an axis separating the Cone Center
from the Student Activity Center. Due to the terrain, this arrangement is
problematic, particularly north of Craver Street and the new plan suggests
development of an alternate north/south axis paralleling Mary Alexander
Drive, ultimately terminating at the proposed North Lawn. |
| |
| The campus today has a mix of quadrangles, lawns, and pedestrian streets
that form a system which could be extended to serve a larger campus. The
campus glens extend like “fingers” into the developed portions of campus
and offer the possibility of maintaining natural settings within the more
urban areas of campus. The surrounding woodlands provide a substantial
buffer between academic life and the burgeoning commercial development
surrounding the campus. |
| |
 |
Open spaces
vary in quality, size, and configuration at UNC Charlotte. Open
spaces in the campus core were evaluated by the Task Force during the
analysis phase. The Task Force rated the East Quadrangle “Very
Good” while the Belk Quadrangle was considered “Very Bad.” Other
spaces including the West Quadrangle and “beach” fell between these
extremes. This suggests the |
| necessity for a major effort to
rehabilitate existing outdoor, spaces on campus. It also provides
an understanding of place-making attributes for new open spaces created
as the campus develops. If Belk Quadrangle and the other mediocre
open spaces were upgraded and enhanced to the point of being considered
“Very Good,” the core open space system would make a far more gracious
collegial campus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The 1995 Plan proposed that a portion of Toby
Creek be used to create a formal linear rowing lake. Environmental
studies (included in the Technical Booklet) suggest a less formal
approach to the enhancement of Toby Creek, allowing it to become both an
open space amenity and a storm drainage control feature (like Boston’s
Muddy River or Westchester New York’s Bronx River). Toby Creek
would then provide an on-going environmental education opportunity at
UNC Charlotte. |
| |
|
| UNC Charlotte is characterized by steep, dramatic topography with over 100
feet of elevation change from the high point at Atkins Library to the low
point along Toby Creek. Most of the level, high ground of the campus has
been developed, resulting in the “L” shaped configuration of the campus
core. The 1995 Plan proposed a new north/south axis for buildings and
pedestrian paths. Carefully studying this axis reveals grading issues
with this approach which would require bridging and significant retaining
walls. |
|
|
| In evaluating existing
uses, a revealing pattern emerges when academic buildings are
graphically highlighted (excluding residential, athletics, or
administration). The academic buildings group predominantly along
a north/south axis (from Belk Quadrangle beyond the Friday building to
Craver Road). This axis, as noted in the drawing above, follows
relatively flat ground and could be extended to connect to future campus
development north of the existing core. It also appears that most
major campus |
 |
| functions have been carefully
located in groups with similar uses. The plan suggests that as the
campus grows to 30,000 students, some measure of use-mixing will make a
diverse, more active, and convenient campus. A figure/ground
analysis of the existing campus (page 33) does not yet reveal a strong,
identifiable, campus-wide pattern though quadrangles suggested in the
1995 Plan are beginning to evolve. Connections between the
quadrangles and an organization for the open spaces into a more
comprehensive campus network must be addressed in a new design effort.
The existing campus grid of axial, organizing lines offers an
opportunity for creating this more comprehensive campus pattern. |
|
