VI. INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE AND COMMON SPACES
OBJECTIVES
The stimulation of communicated ideas, the synergism of human energy and creativity, the most evocative teaching, the subtle expression of confusion: these activities take place among people interacting with each other in space. Faculty activities outside the classroom, student group learning and participation, mentoring, learning across departmental boundaries: these dimensions of intellectual climate require space in which to flourish. This University has neglected the husbandry of its common space.
The intelligent design of buildings and external spaces can enhance opportunities for informal interactions among all groups of our University community. Interior and exterior spaces containing benches, walls, and public interaction spaces should be created to promote an environment of improved communal gatherings. Lobbies should become more than airlocks; rock walls should more often become benches. These spaces should set an ambiance and provide an opportunity for both isolated personal reflection and informal small-group interaction.
Campus interaction space should be designed with the insight and ideas of the people who will use it. Students, staff, and faculty, in departments and associations and as individuals, must help to identify needs, generate ideas, contribute to design, and review implementation.
BACKGROUND
Our committee defines space as places where people can gather and exchange ideas and information. We make a distinction between, on the one hand, the kinds of spaces which promote human interaction, and, on the other, ceremonial or utilitarian space. Interaction spaces foster spontaneous human exchange (see Appendix VIA.). The key attributes of these interactive spaces are that:
· They are open ended in their use.
· They are open to all (non-exclusive).
· They are open beyond the normal work day.
· They support a range of activity, from loud to quiet, from large groups to small
· They are easily accessible.
· They are comfortable to the climate (shady, sunny, or heated as appropriate).
Historically, the public square did not serve everyone; its exclusionary nature reflected class, race, and gender differences. Now the situation has changed but not necessarily improved. Public spaces are less exclusionary but more divided, as different groups have created their own "civic" spaces. And, frequently, public space is used only for entertainment rather than intellectual, philosophical, or even personal interaction. Often public space exists as a big mall (even in student centers) or is effectively exterminated by television. National tendencies toward the atomization of space can be further exacerbated on a college campus by the inherent divisions of discipline, age, and role. Constant budgetary pressures toward lowest-cost maintenance do not help foster quality or grace. It will take constant engagement and active planning to counter these processes and enhance the intellectual climate on campus.
BARRIERS TO THE MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF COMMON SPACE
1. Lack of Sufficient Interaction Space. The campus lacks a sufficient number and variety of spontaneous interaction spaces. There are a few good examples, such as the "Pit" and assorted stoops and walls, most notably the wall at the north end of McCorkle Place along Franklin Street. The instant popularity of the space created around a fountain in Bynum Circle and the universal acclaim this committee heard for the Daily Grind attest to the hunger and need for such space.
Specifically, there is a great need for space in which small groups can gather and talk. This is most strongly felt with regard to eating, as there is little space in which faculty can talk with graduate students or with colleagues in other departments. There are few places faculty can meet with students after class to continue a conversation. It is difficult for students to find a spot to develop a group presentation or just to engage in extra-class discussion sessions. There is no place for small professional meetings. There is no place for faculty to meet their colleagues outside of committee work. Students, staff, and often faculty do not feel welcome to enter specialized space. Even the rooms of the student union are largely assigned to organizations, and little is left in common. When new buildings are constructed, among the first things reduced or eliminated by budget constraints are lounges and non-classroom meeting rooms.
When interaction space is available, there are sometimes impediments to using it. The problem of parking at night was frequently cited as a hindrance to faculty engagement with student groups or presentation of evening videos or other extra-class activities.
2. Lack of sufficient space for display, performance, and other forms of communication. There is little encounter with the poetry, art, or music of the faculty and students of this campus, in part because there are so few public spaces devoted to these activities. Old, new, and renovated buildings all suffer from dead space, cold lobbies, institutional color, lack of display areas, few bulletin boards, and lack of other space in which information, opinions, or achievements can be posted. There is little organized printed communication about colloquia and other talks given on campus. Faculty, staff, and students find little invitation to be around campus outside of work, and little space in which to do so.
3. Insufficient Oversight of the Use of Internal Space. Those who will inhabit buildings needs to have input into the design process. Levels of consultation vary; most goes to new buildings designed for special purposes, such as dramatic art, and increasingly less to other new buildings, renovated buildings and reallocated space, until there is none at all for old buildings continuing in their use. There should be processes through which campus communities can make improvements to promote the intellectual climate.
4. Insufficient Respect for Common Spaces. So much needs to be done to save and enhance the magic and spirit of the campus as its population increases and its use intensifies that this report could be consumed by that subject alone -- as was most of the committee's time. The loss of common space caused by removal of the Scuttlebut has already been sorely felt.
The University must protect existing common spaces from encroachment. Certainly the most important, successful, and critical common space on campus is the Greater Pit Area. Its character is currently endangered by changes to the buildings around it: Lenoir Hall and the student union are already under contract and the Daniel Building should follow. Care must be taken not to destroy the essence of this common space.
At the same time, there is a pressing need for new common spaces. There is especially a need for indoor space where faculty can meet, hear talks from outside their own research interests, and hear each other's creative work, ideas, and experiences. This intellectual activity should of course be easily accessible to students and staff. Campus music groups need space to perform or jam informally. People need space to gather for lunch or a snack when unplanned minutes are available. There is great need for sundry space that is not overly structured and that is flexible, inclusive, open, and held in common.
Similarly, outdoor space is underutilized. The space on North campus, for example, is too great and beautiful a resource to be used mainly for transit. Outdoors sitting features there are almost entirely linear (like walls) rather than inviting to small groups and clusters of people talking with each other. There are few benches and fewer tables.
There are only a few sites where a small class can meet outdoors or where a student project group can assemble. The beautifully fenced enclosure between Saunders and Hamilton, for example, would be used much more often if there were a few wrought-iron tables, benches and seats. Zigzag or parallel groupings of benches on the sides of the quads could provide places for discussion groups, readers and studiers, outdoor classes and consultations, etc. One suggestion is for a series of mini-amphitheaters as a motif around campus. Some could be clustered between sidewalks; other benches could descend the steep banks around some buildings; others could cluster in corners of terraces.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Increase the amount and quality of existing interaction space, and the ease of access to it.
1A. The University should publicly establish the importance of the creation and maintenance of good interaction space as a priority.
1B. In planning both for new campus facilities and for renovations of existing buildings or spaces, designs that will improve the campus' intellectual climate should receive high priority. This priority should receive regular attention through an institutionalized procedure, as does planning for handicapped access, custodial accommodations, or telecommunications infrastructure. When architects are hired, they should routinely be charged to design buildings and surroundings that are attractive and conducive to human interaction.
1C. Establish a subcommittee of the new Committee on Intellectual Life (see Section III, 2A) to focus on common space considerations. Members of this subcommittee could also serve as core members of ad hoc committees created to address particular buildings, areas, or community needs. The Subcommittee on Common Space (SCS) should be charged to:
I. Work with the Building and Grounds Committee to develop a master plan for public space and clear design principles to guide architects in the creation of inviting, flexible, accessible, and inclusive common space.
ii. Oversee the creation of an inventory of existing public space resources. Such a system could be the basis of an interactive, visual query system or other clearinghouse to locate available space. For example, a Geographic Information System might include both interior rooms and external benches, lobbies and lounges, landscape vegetation, stoops, and crosswalks.
iii. Assess current and future needs.
iv. Encourage faculty/staff/student creativity and engagement in campus design by creating a web site, Campus Vision, with material suitable for use in capstone courses, workshops, and service learning, and by creating and judging various competitions for funding (see 4D in this section).
1D. The Department of Parking and Transportation should find a remedy for the parking needs of faculty returning to campus at night for academic activities.
2. Increase space for display, performance, and other forms of communication.
The University Director for Intellectual Life (see Section III, 1B) should explore ways to increase common space for artistic displays and musical performances. For example, the Employee Forum has suggested placing poetry placards in buses and cafeterias. Such a practice would provide a suitable venue to celebrate the winners of students creative writing and poetry awards. Departments or faculty/students/staff could purchase or lease the best of student and faculty art and use it in offices, dormitory rooms, and department conference rooms. There might be an annual art sale, or a permanent collection on lend lease might be developed as is done at other universities. A covered arcade (between Hill Hall parking lot and Franklin Street, behind the art school) could provide a place for art or book sales, music, street theater, or a graffiti wall.
2A. The SCS should provide authority and oversight for work/study positions as "space cadets". One position, an art gallery attendant (hopefully in a future Student Union gallery), could disseminate poetry and art as well as update and maintain files on art leasing and display. Another position, a music coordinator, could bring more student performances to common spaces.
2B. Multiple structures (walls, kiosks) for posting or painting should be constructed in suitable areas, such as the Student Union, theaters, the Campus Y, bus stops for dormitories, and/or an arcade.
3. Improve Oversight over the Use of Existing Internal Space.
3A. The SCS should immediately develop protocols for the composition and work of ad hoc committees, which could then be used by Facilities Planning and Design to survey, assess, and provide user input into design of new and renovated buildings. The imminent changes to the Student Union should be the first case.
3B. Extend the charge of the Classroom Committee to include an ongoing inventory of interaction space in buildings and to identify the unfriendliest areas. Regions of campus should be targeted on a rotating basis so that space is continually upgraded.
3C. Through reallocation of money targeted for building maintenance and capital improvements, a fund should be created to finance proposals by departments and other groups to use dead space and lobbies, modify lounges, buy paint, chairs, curtains and other simple amenities, install display cases and bulletin boards, etc. Such proposals could be judged and funded competitively by the Subcommittee on Common Space and the Director for Intellectual Life, just as the University Research Council judges small grant applications. Facilities Planning and Design should provide such groups basic help in estimating costs.
3D. The SCS, working with Campus Security and others, should investigate the feasibility of using the UNC ONE Card for access to secured ground floors or sections of buildings. This could open up much space for night meetings or study.
4. Protect the Integrity of Common Spaces and Develop New Spaces.
We propose immediate measures in several critical areas, and procedures and means to address the broader topic.
4A. The role of the Greater Pit Area as the preeminent place for interaction must be protected and enhanced. As renovations proceed on the surrounding buildings, the architects must consider the effect of their renovations on this special space.
4B. Develop Gerrard Hall and the area around it as an open, inviting common space. Three elements are critical to this endeavor: events, food, and space. We make recommendations for each.
I. Events: Open Gerrard Hall to a daily event (e.g., cross-disciplinary talks, discussions of pressing campus topics, speeches or debates by candidates in election season, poetry readings, tales of unusual travel) where people could drop in and expect others to be there. Initially, the Director for Intellectual Life should develop a program of faculty presentations for one fixed day each week; an open, informal sign-up could be used to reserve time to speak. Musical and dramatic presentations might also be arranged.
ii. Food: In the immediate future, food could be brought from the Y; in the longer run, simple food such as pretzels, coffee, or frozen yogurt could be available in the courtyard.
iii. Space: Small platforms, benches and walls could provide a variety of venues for music, eating or contemplation in the sunshine. We do not know how well the immediate plans to use Gerrard Hall as a food venue while Lenoir is being renovated would fit into this; but they are not long-term impediments, and enhancement of the area could start now.
4C. The Chancellor should ask the Facilities Planning and Design Committee to take a more creative and active role in improving outdoor ambiance for community interaction. Physical Plant design personnel should give regular attention to creative planning and work more closely with faculty and students. Minimum maintenance cost should not always be the preeminent criterion in design decisions.
4D. Outdoor seating for small groups of people should be quickly increased as well as included in the master plan for public space.
I. The University should annually fund and build the best proposal for outdoor seating.
ii. The SCS should solicit funds from class gifts and other sources for its projects.
iii. The SCS should develop contests and course opportunities for the development of proposals to redesign common spaces.
iv. The SCS should develop a format similar to service learning projects that would enable students to imagine a project to improve outdoor space for interaction, and then to work with faculty and Facilities Design to implement it.
4E. Noise pollution should be surveyed across campus in order to create a traffic and parking plan that minimizes disturbance to the intellectual activities of campus.
4F. The Director of Intellectual Life should identify and develop better ways to use Forest Theater.
CONCLUSIONS
To sustain a vibrant intellectual life, university members must be able to interact freely and frequently. Such interactions take place in the common spaces of the university. But the spatial features of intellectual life have been neglected far too long by this university. To renew our intellectual life, we must create spaces that invite intellectual exchange. The participants in those exchanges must be a vital part of the process of design.
CHAPTER V | TABLE OF CONTENTS | CHAPTER VII