1

Texas State Universitysan marcos

Campus Master Plan and Guidelines

2006 - 2015

2

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE

Ms. Nancy Nusbaum, ChairFinance and Support Services Representative

Mr. Rick BishopInformation Technology Representative

Dr. Pat CassidyProvost/Academic Affairs Representative

Mr. Pat FogartyFacilities Representative

Ms. Kim Porterfi eldUniversity Advancement Representative

Dr. Joanne SmithStudent Affairs Representative

Dr. William “Bill” StoneFaculty Senate Representative

Texas State University SAN MARCOS

A member of the Texas State University System

3

Texas State Universitysan marcos

Campus Master Plan and Guidelines

2006 - 2015

iv

Honor thePast ~Claim theFuture

“We are what we have been and what we will become because of our roots in this place, on this hill, and with this city. We pay tribute to all who have loved this place and still love it, as we honor the past and claim the future.”

President Denise M. Trauth ~ Celebration, 100th Anniversary of Classes at Texas State, Old Main 2003

v

Dear Colleagues:

Good campus planning is characterized by key

elements, such as an inclusive and participatory

approach, sensitivity to the unique qualities of

place, insightful analysis, and inspired design. Th e

Campus Master Plan for Texas State University-

San Marcos was developed paying special attention

to these elements. After two years of discussion

and planning, involving hundreds of members of

the University and San Marcos communities, I am

pleased to share this plan with you.

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Th e greatest

thing in this world is not so much where we

are, but in what direction we are moving.” Th e

Campus Master Plan for 2006-2015 supports

new and ongoing programmatic initiatives with

specifi c recommendations for additional academic

space while respecting long-term aspirations of

enhancing the institution’s image. Th e Plan defi nes

opportunities for accommodating growth and

addresses access and vehicular management. As we

strive to “Honor the Past and Claim the Future” it

achieves both a functional and attractive student

centered campus environment.

First impressions sometimes convey surprising

and unintended messages. Landscape plays an

infl uential role in creating and shaping a sense of

place. Knowing this, we asked that the Master Plan

include design guidelines for both architecture and

landscape to help connect the diff erent parts of the

Texas State campus and create a sense of place that

will remain strong and clear in the memories of our

graduates.

Implementation of this ambitious Master Plan will

require continued campus discussion and fi nancial

support. With a sound yet fl exible Master Plan

A Letter From the President

based on shared Guiding Principles, we have a clear

and powerful guide for the physical development of

the campus over the next decade and beyond.

I am indebted to the people, both at Texas State

and in the San Marcos community, who created a

plan that proposes a new vision of excellence and

diversity for Texas State’s future.

Sincerely,

Denise M. Trauth

President

vi

Broaddus & Associates, Inc.1301 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite A-302Austin, Texas 78746Phone: (512) 329-8822www.broaddusassociates.comDr. James A. Broaddus, PE, Planning ExecutiveMr. Stephen Coulston, Planning Director

Ayers/Saint/Gross Architects + Campus Planners800 Eye Street NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20001Phone: (202) 628-1033www.asg-architects.comMr. Dhiru Th adani, Principal-in-ChargeMr. James A. Wheeler, PrincipalMs. Sarah Lewis, Project ManagerMs. Betsy Boykin, Landscape ArchitectMs. Katie Poindexter, Project PlannerMs. Greta Weidner, Project Planner

DataCom Design Group, LLC608 Blanco StreetAustin, Texas 78703Phone: (512) 478-6001

Facility Programming & Consulting, Ltd.100 West Houston Street, Suite 1170San Antonio, Texas 78205Phone: (210) 228-9600

Halff Associates, Inc.1421 Wells Branch Parkway, Suite 104Austin, Texas 78660Phone: (512) 252-8184

J. Robert Anderson, FASLA3718 Manchaca RoadAustin, Texas 78704Phone: (512) 440-1049

Shah Smith & Associates, Inc.2825 Wilcrest, Suite 350Houston, Texas 77042Phone: (713) 780-7563

Volz & Associates, Inc.1105 W. 42nd StreetAustin, Texas 78756-3710Phone: (512) 476-0433

WHM Transportation Engineering504 Lavaca Street, #1175Austin, TX 78701Phone: (512) 473-8343

Participants

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM BOARD OF REGENTSMr. Kent M. AdamsMs. Dora G. AlcalaMs. Patricia Diaz DennisMr. Alan W. DreebenMr. John E. DudleyMr. Dionicio “Don” FloresMr. Bernie C. FrancisMr. James A. “Jimmy” HayleyMs. Pollyanna A. Stephens

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITYSAN MARCOS LOCAL PLANNING COMMITTEEMr. Kent M. Adams, Regent Ms. Barrie Breed, Local CitizenMr. John E. Dudley, RegentMr. Dionicio “Don” Flores, RegentMr. Charles Matthews, Chancellor of the Texas State

University SystemDr. Perry Moore, Provost/Vice President for Academic AffairsMr. William A. Nance, Vice President for Finance and

Support ServicesMr. Phil Neighbors, President of the San Marcos Area

Chamber of CommerceMs. Shelley Nottingham, Representative of the

Associated Student GovernmentMr. Dan O’Leary, Representative of the Mayor of San MarcosDr. Joanne Smith, Interim Vice President for Student AffairsDr. William Stone, Representative of the FacultyMr. Patrick Sullivan, Director of Planning and Construction

of the Texas State University SystemDr. Denise M. Trauth, PresidentMr. Lamar Urbanovsky, Vice Chancellor for Planning and

Construction of the Texas State University System

PRESIDENT’S CABINETDr. Denise M. Trauth, PresidentDr. John DeLeon, Presidential FellowDr. Robert D. Gratz, Special Assistant to the PresidentDr. Perry Moore, Provost/Vice President for Academic AffairsMr. William A. Nance, Vice President for Finance and

Support ServicesMs. T. Cay Rowe, Interim Vice President for University

AdvancementDr. Joanne Smith, Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Dr. James Studer, Special Assistant to the PresidentDr. Larry Teis, Director of AthleticsDr. Beth Wuest, Presidential FellowDr. Van Wyatt, Vice President for Information Technology

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEEMs. Nancy Nusbaum, Chair, Finance and Support

Services Representative

Consultant team

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mr. Rick Bishop, Information Technology RepresentativeDr. Pat Cassidy, Provost/Academic Affairs RepresentativeMr. Pat Fogarty, Facilities RepresentativeMs. Kim Porterfi eld, University Advancement RepresentativeDr. Joanne Smith, Student Affairs RepresentativeDr. William “Bill” Stone, Faculty Senate Representative

CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEEMs. Linda Allen, Staff Council (2002-2004)Ms. Carol Barrett, City of San Marcos, Director of

Planning and Development (2003-2005)Mr. Rick Bishop, Information Technology (2002-2005)Dr. Mike Boone, Faculty Senate, Campus Environment

and Facilities Committee (2003-2005)Ms. Clare Brice, College of Education (2002-2005)Mr. Coyle Buhler, Facilities (2003-2005)Dr. Patrick E. Cassidy, Academic Aff airs (2002-2005)Dr. T. Richard Cheatham, College of Fine Arts and

Communication (2002-2005)Mr. Wilbon Davis, College of Science (2002-2005)Mr. Ernie Dominguez, Associated Student Government

(2003-2004)Mr. Robert Doerr, Associated Student Government

(2002-2003)Dr. Ann Marie Ellis, College of Liberal Arts (2002-2005)Mr. Pat Fogarty, Facilities (2002-2005)Dr. B.J. Friedman, College of Applied Arts (2005)Dr. Chris Frost, Faculty Senate (2002-2003)Mr. Derek Grice, Athletics (2003-2005)Dr. Francis Horne, Faculty Senate, Campus Environment

and Facilities Committee (2002-2003) Dr. Charles Johnson, College of Health Professions

(2002-2004)Mr. Chris Jones, Associated Student Government (2004-2005) Dr. Greg Marshall, College of Health Professions (2004)Ms. Deborah McDaniel, Staff Council (2004-2005) Mr. Joe Meyer, Institutional Research (2003-2005)Mr. Ralph Meyer, University Police (2002-2005)Ms. Nancy Nusbaum, Chair, Finance and Support

Services (2002-2005)Dr. Robert J. Olney, McCoy College of Business

Administration (2002-2005)Mr. Jerry Parker, Associated Student Government

(2004-2005) Mr. William “Bill” Peeler, Faculty Senate (2003-2004)Ms. Kim Porterfi eld, University Advancement (2003-2005)Dr. Paul Raff eld, University College (2002-2005)Mr. Ted Redlaczyk, Residence Life (2002-2003)Dr. Edna Rehbein, Round Rock Higher Education

Center (2002-2005)Mr. Ed Reznicek, Facilities (2002-2003)Ms. Dianna Richards, University Advancement (2002-2003)Mr. John Root, Auxiliary Services (2002-2005)Dr. Barb Sanders, College of Health Professions (2005)

Ms. Tina Schultz, Disability Services (2002-2005)Mr. Jim Settle, Residence Life (2003-2005)Dr. Joanne Smith, Student Aff airs (2002-2005)Dr. William “Bill” Stone, Faculty Senate (2004-2005)Dr. Quint Th urman, College of Applied Arts (2002-2004)Dr. Kathy Voges, Special Assistant to the Vice President

for Finance, Ex offi cio (2002-2004)

CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT AND FACILITIES SURVEY SUBCOMMITTEEDr. Ann Marie Ellis, College of Liberal ArtsDr. Francis Horne, BiologyMr. Ernie Dominguez, Associated Student GovernmentMr. Joe Meyer, Institutional ResearchMs. Nancy Nusbaum, Finance and Support ServicesDr. Robert Olney, McCoy College of Business

AdministrationMs. Dianna Richards, University AdvancementMs. T. Cay Rowe, Media Relations and PublicationsMs. Tina Schultz, Disability ServicesMs. Susan Th ompson, Student Aff airsDr. Toni Watt, Sociology

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS SUBCOMMITTEEDr. Ann Marie Ellis, College of Liberal ArtsDr. Cathy Fleuriet, Institutional Eff ectivenessMr. Joe Meyer, Institutional ResearchMs. Nancy Nusbaum, Finance and Support ServicesDr. Paul Raff eld, University CollegeDr. Joanne Smith, Student Aff airs

RFQ/RFP FOR MASTER PLAN SUBCOMMITTEEMs. Linda Allen, Staff CouncilMr. Coyle Buhler, Facilities Dr. Pat Cassidy, Provost/Academic Aff airsDr. Richard Cheatham, College of Fine Arts and

CommunicationMr. Pat Fogarty, Facilities Ms. Nancy Nusbaum, Finance and Support ServicesMr. Ted Redlaczyk, Residence LifeDr. Kathy Voges, Finance and Support Services

SPACE AUDIT SUBCOMMITTEEMs. Debbie Banks, Provost/Academic Aff airsMs. Clare Brice, Health, PE and RecreationDr. Bill Covington, Research and Sponsored ProgramsMr. Scott Erwin, Grants AdministrationDr. Charles Johnson, Health Services ResearchMs. Nancy Nusbaum, Finance and Support ServicesDr. Robert Olney, McCoy College of Business

AdministrationMr. Chris Reynolds, Finance and Support ServicesMr. Doug VanDenBerg, Registrar’s Offi ce

CAMPUS LIGHTING AND SAFETY COMMITTEEMr. Paul Chapa, University PoliceMr. Paul Cornell, Facilities Planning, Design and

ConstructionMr. Allen Goldapp, Facilities Management/ChairDr. Verna Henson, Criminal JusticeMr. Justin McGarry, Associated Student GovernmentMr. Ted Redlaczyk, Residence LifeMs. Tina Schultz, Disability ServicesMs. Betty Treanor, Faculty Senate, Facilities and

Environment Committee

FRESHMAN BUILDING FEASIBILITY COMMITTEEDr. Ronald Brown, University College/ChairMr. Wilbon Davis, College of Science, Campus Facilities

Planning CommitteeDr. Carol Dochen, University CollegeDr. David Glassman, College of Liberal ArtsMs. Elizabeth Harkey, StudentMs. Aarin Hartwell, StudentDr. Timothy Mottet, College of Fine Arts and

CommunicationDr. Milton Nielsen, Information TechnologyMr. Jim Settle, Student Aff airsDr. Garland Upchurch, College of ScienceMs. Nancy Wilson, College of Liberal Arts Dr. Pamela Wuestenberg, University College

GUIDING PRINCIPLES SUBCOMMITTEE Dr. Ann Marie Ellis, College of Liberal ArtsDr. Cathy Fleuriet, Institutional Eff ectivenessMs. Nancy Nusbaum, Finance and Support ServicesDr. Robert Olney, McCoy College of Business

AdministrationMr. William “Bill” Peeler, Faculty SenateMs. Kim Porterfi eld, University AdvancementDr. Paul Raff eld, Academic Aff airsDr. Teya Rosenberg, Faculty SenateDr. Kathy Voges, Finance and Support Services

SPECIAL THANKSMr. Chris Reynolds and Mr. Bob Staff ord for providing CAD and GIS dataMs. Melinda Zavala for her assistance throughout the process

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction A Letter from the Project Leader 02 Guiding Principles 03 University Mission Statement 04 Th e Campus Master Plan Process 04 Strategic Planning Process 05 Campus Environment and Facilities Survey 06 Critical Success Factors 07 Planning Constraints 07 Planning Assumptions 07 Campus Planning Methodology 08

Observations Regional Context 12 Planning Context 13 History of Campus 14 Campus Development 16 Representative Campus Buildings 18 Previous Campus Master Plans 20 Existing Conditions 22 Existing Land Use 23 Facility Space Programming 24 Transportation and Parking Infrastructure 26

Final Plan

Concept 30 Long Term Vision 31 Ten Year Building Plan 32 Ten Year Renovation Plan 33 Gray-to-Green Transformation 34 Land Use Analysis 35 Implementation Plan 36

Built Systems

Transportation Modes 40 Transportation System 41 Campus Gateways 42 Street Network 44 Pedestrian Network 44 Parking System 44 Infrastructure Systems General Recommendations 45 Stormwater Drainage 45 Potable Water 45 Sanitary Sewer 46 Natural Gas 46 Chilled Water 47 Steam 47 Electrical Distribution 48 Campus Technology 48

Natural Systems

Landscape System 50 Regional Topography 52 Campus Topography 52 Stormwater Management 52 Natural Resources 53

Interventions Introduction to the Interventions 56 Moon Street Alignment 57 Fine Arts and Communication Center 58 Bobcat Trail 60 North Campus 62 Canopy Addition at Bus Hub 63 Derrick Hall Addition 64 Undergraduate Academic Center 65 Evans Canopy 66 Comanche Street Colonnade 67 Student Recreation Center Addition 68 State Street Parking Garage 69 Housing Complex 70 Commons Courtyard 71 Undergraduate Admissions Center 72 East/West Connection Alternate 73 Alkek Library Expansion 73

Guidelines

Urban Design Guidelines Introduction 76 Site Locator 77 Undergraduate Academic Center 78 Fine Arts and Communication Center 79 Family and Consumer Sciences Addition 80 Derrick Hall Addition 81 Academic Building - Elliott Site 82 University Drive Liner Building 83 Housing - Comanche and Sessom 84 Housing - Hornsby/Burleson 85 Greenhouse 86 Cogeneration Plant Addition 87 Student Recreation Center Addition 88 Alumni Center 89 Matthews Street Parking Garage 90 Speck Street Parking Garage 91 Fine Arts and Communication Parking Garage 92 State Street Parking Garage 93 Architectural Design Guidelines Site and Materials 94 Building and Roof Forms 95 Facade Articulation 96 Fenestration and Encroachments 98 Structured Parking Garages 100 Historic Resources 101

Landscape Design Guidelines Elements 102 Zones 103 Design Guidelines 104 Products 105 Paving 106

Appendix

Transportation and Parking Philosophy and Guiding Principles 110Parking Cost Research 111Student and Faculty Vehicular Counts 112Derrick Wing Study 113Historic Building Survey 114Metered Parking Map 116Plant Palette 117

viii

1

~ Introduction ~

2

Greetings,

It is very exciting to be involved in a master planning

process. You get to step outside the box, dream

a little (or a lot) and make suggestions that could

forever change the look of the campus. You learn

very quickly how passionately some individuals feel

about certain things.

Marcel Proust, a French intellectual and novelist,

said, “Th e real act of discovery consists not of fi nding

new lands, but in seeing with new eyes.” Our

consultants felt certain that land acquisition beyond

our boundaries was not necessary and that additional

capacity was achievable on campus. Th erefore, when

we heard “you cannot do that” we countered with,

“Why not? What if? and What about?”

Th e multi-phased eff ort provided a wide range

of constituent groups the opportunity to think

strategically about the long-term vision for growth

A Letter From the Project Leader

and change at the University. Th e phases involved

reviewing the history of the university, looking

at what we currently have, reviewing what works

well and what does not, and identifying what we

will need to achieve the mission of the University.

Transportation, parking, utilities, landscaping,

stormwater management, new building locations,

and architectural styles were deliberated. Th ere

may not be total agreement with everything in

the plan, but most of the conclusions outlined are

endorsed by many faculty, staff , students, alumni,

and the citizens of San Marcos.

Th e Campus Master Plan, created by and for the

Texas State community, will guide the development

of our campus for many years to come. Th e Plan

allows us to showcase our status of excellence without

sacrifi cing the carefully cultivated small campus

atmosphere. It also enhances our relationship with

the greater San Marcos community. Th e Plan

provides suggestions for unifying the campus with

appropriate entrances and borders to indicate arrival

on campus. It aff ords opportunities for accentuating

the unique physical characteristics of the campus

and celebrating its natural beauty. Th e Plan also

presents guidelines for a cohesive architectural style.

It off ers several proposals for managing motorized

and pedestrian traffi c fl ow more eff ectively and safely

to encourage and facilitate a walking and bicycle-

friendly campus.

Th e next step is implementation of the Plan. We are

confi dent that this plan will not end up on a shelf.

It is composed of many detailed recommendations

for future development of the campus. Th e Master

Planning process included careful and deliberate

consideration of the recommendations, followed

by fi nancial analyses, structural reviews of existing

buildings, measurement of spaces, and reviews with

the City of San Marcos to ensure the Plan is practical

and achievable. Implementation of this plan will

enhance the experience of learning, living, working,

and visiting Texas State University-San Marcos.

Sincerely,

Nancy NusbaumAssistant Vice President for Finance and Support Services Planning, Project Leader of the 2006-2015 Texas State Campus Master Plan

3

Mobility

Creating an effi cient and safe campus network of thoroughfares and pathways for pedestrians, bicycles, buses, and cars is of paramount concern. Th erefore, the Master Plan prescribes a new transportation strategy. Reallocating core surface parking to conveniently located parking garages will free-up space for new buildings and open spaces. Parking garages will serve resident and commuter students, faculty, staff , and visitors to the campus. Students and faculty are encouraged to park once and walk or bike during their time on campus. Th oughtful separation of the pedestrian and automobile enriches the campus experience and creates meaningful large scale and intimate gathering spaces. Covered walkways help pedestrians move conveniently, sheltered from rain or excessive summer sun. Cyclists will have designated routes to travel – routes connecting key areas of campus and the San Marcos community. Also, on the southern edge, the streets and sidewalks from downtown San Marcos will penetrate the campus in a seamless pedestrian experience.

Architecture

Campus buildings serve diff erent functions, but each contributes to the identity and sense of place at Texas State. A variety of architectural styles adds visual diversity to a campus. However, diversity turns to chaos unless architectural individuality is in harmony with adjoining structures and in context with the balance of the campus. Texas State’s buildings are an eclectic assemblage of architectural styles. Design guidelines now exist to present a unifi ed approach that respects the historical precedent and embraces the technological advances of modern times. As the University adds square footage over the Master Plan anticipates the need to address infrastructure requirements of the campus in the least intrusive manner. New buildings are sited in close proximity to existing buildings to better use the land, and create a compact pedestrian friendly campus.

Natural Environment

Because the quality of the physical environment has a tremendous infl uence on the image and function of the institution, the Master Plan guides the extension of the intimate character of the central Quad through a series of pedestrian corridors. Pedestrian access for walkers from McCoy Hall to the College of Education building will be achieved by converting Bobcat Trail to a shaded walkway parallel to the original academic Quad. Th e systematic removal of surface parking lots will create a comprehensive network of green open spaces and new building footprints. Th is change to the physical character of the campus is benefi cial on many levels: ecologically, it assists with stormwater management and water retention; it softens the look and feel of the campus; socially, it fosters spontaneous student interaction creating a sense of campus community; and physically, it supports a campus on which walking is preferable over driving. A holistic appearance with the consistent use of native plants, paving materials, and site furnishings will unify the campus and reinforce the unique character of the campus landscape.

Community

Th e historical practice of juxtaposing academic, residential, and cultural facilities creates the unique character of the Texas State campus. As formal education spills from the classrooms, students and faculty cross paths in a series of outdoor rooms where the opportunity to congregate and converse encourages a vibrant intellectual community. Future residence halls should be limited to fi ve stories with patios and green space to help further stimulate social interaction away from the classroom. Students will have easier access to computer facilities by relocating the open computer lab from the fourth fl oor of the Math Computer Science building to the fi rst fl oor of Derrick Hall, directly accessible from the Quad. Additionally, the entrance to the campus will engage the San Marcos community through the distinctive Fine Arts and Communication Center and a public green. Th e seamless knitting of the southern edge of campus with the surrounding community will help to create a dynamic college town.

Identity

As a public institution, the University has a symbiotic relationship with the San Marcos community. Th e Master Plan prescribes visual cues that defi ne the campus boundaries without restricting physical access. Th e intersections of Comanche, North LBJ, and State Street along the northern edge and the intersections of Moon and South LBJ on the southern edge will be highlighted with planted medians, entrance signage, and traffi c lights. At the pedestrian scale, the campus will be identifi ed by uniform paving and street furniture. Th e University will be visually defi ned by a formal green space extending from the Th eatre Center to LBJ Street, the new Fine Arts and Communication Center, and the new Undergraduate Academic Center. Old Main will remain the most important symbol of Texas State and the character of the original academic Quad will be maintained as a way of preserving the small campus atmosphere.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

4

UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT

The Campus Master Plan Process

In the spring of 2003 Texas State University-San Marcos launched a campus master planning process intended to lead the University through the year 2015 and beyond. Faculty, staff , and students on the Campus Facilities Planning Committee understood that the process was as important as the product, and with a fl awed process the plan could simply languish on the shelf. Th erefore, considerable time was spent on creating an inclusive and open process and a reasonable time line with the intention that both the process and the product would be worthwhile and useful.

Critical success factors were created to ensure the success of the process and that the Plan itself would serve the University well. Planning constraints were identifi ed and discussed at length before consultants were ever brought to campus. Key planning assumptions that identifi ed probable future conditions as outlined in the University Strategic Plan were adopted. Faculty, staff , students, and the San Marcos community spent a great deal of time writing the Guiding Principles for the Plan.

Th ese Guiding Principles, which focus on identity, community, natural environment, architecture, and mobility, guided us as we shaped the development and improvement of the campus environment and facilities. Information gleaned from an October 2003 Survey of Campus Environment and Facilities was valuable in developing the Principles. In addition, two university committees were formed by the President to review campus lighting and safety and study the need for a Freshman Building. Recommendations from both of the committees have been incorporated in the Plan.

Foremost in our thinking was that this campus master planning process was to be a public exercise. Many meetings and open forums were held, progress of the plan was published routinely on the web, and feedback was invited regularly. Monthly meetings were held over a twelve-month period not only with faculty, staff , and students, but also with the City of San Marcos staff and members of the San Marcos community. Faculty came forward with suggested class projects allowing us to “draw upon our own

Texas State University-San Marcos is a public, stu-dent-centered, doctoral granting institution dedicated to excellence in serving the educational needs of the diverse population of Texas and the world beyond.

Shared Values

In pursuing our mission we, the faculty, staff and students of Texas State University-San Marcos, are guided by a shared collection of values. Specifi cally, we value:

- An exceptional undergraduate experience as the heart of what we do;

- Graduate education as a means of intellectual growth and professional development;

- A diversity of people and ideas, a spirit of inclu-siveness, a global perspective, and a sense of com-munity as essential conditions for campus life;

- Th e cultivation of character and the modeling of honesty, integrity, compassion, fairness, respect, and ethical behavior, both in the classroom and beyond;

- Engaged teaching and learning based in dia-logue, student involvement, and the free ex-change of ideas;

- Research, scholarship, and creative activity as fundamental sources of new knowledge and as expressions of the human spirit;

- A commitment to public service as a resource for personal, educational, cultural, and economic development;

- Th oughtful refl ection, collaboration, planning, and evaluation as essential for meeting the changing needs of those we serve.

internal pool of talent, creativity, and expertise.” Classes in Agriculture (landscape design), Art and Design (sculpture), Geography (advanced GIS), Technology (architectural drafting), History (historical preservation), and Family and Consumer Sciences (interior design) contributed useful suggestions. Many of these projects were either posted on the Campus Master Plan web site or the recommendations were incorporated into the Plan. Th e Campus Master Plan Steering Committee was formed to help guide the planning and ensure the process continued to be a public exercise.

In May 2005, the 2006-2015 Campus Master Plan was presented to the Local Planning Committee and later to the Texas State University System Board of Regents. Th e Board unanimously approved the Plan as presented. A Master Plan process does not end with the approval of the plan. Quickly thereafter, a Campus Master Plan Implementation Team was created and will present the fi rst projects to the Board of Regents at the August 2005 meeting for architect approval.

5

Exc

elle

nc

ePu

blic

Stu

den

t C

ente

red

Do

cto

ral

G

ran

tin

gD

iver

se

MobilityArchitectureNatural

EnvironmentCommunityIdentity

A strategic plan should be the initial step in the master planning process. Strategic plans identify the institution’s vision of where the leaders want the institution to go and how they want to get there. Master plans are created to support the strategic plan, more specifi cally the physical environment that needs to exist to help the University achieve its desired vision.

In 2003, Texas State University-San Marcos began the process of reviewing and updating the University Plan. Th e 2004-2009 University Plan identifi es the academic and program goals for the University. It specifi cally addresses: helping Texas reach its Closing the Gaps targets in access, success, excellence, and research; providing a premier undergraduate experience for students from across Texas and beyond; addressing the special needs of the surrounding Austin-San Antonio region; further expanding opportunities for graduate education; conducting research to expand the knowledge base in many academic disciplines; and serving as a major resource and economic engine for the State.

During the planning process, departments were asked to address fi ve major initiatives: academic programs (including distance learning), student learning and success, scholarly and creative/grant activity, development, and diversity. Th ey were also asked to identify infrastructure (support structures/facilities) needed to fulfi ll their plans. Th is information proved valuable for the Campus Master Plan.

When asked what she wanted the Campus Master Plan to address, President Denise M. Trauth referenced the following University Goals and highlighted six key points:

Strategic Planning Process

Goal 1: Promote academic quality by building a distinguished faculty, developing a university culture of research, and managing enrollment. (excellence)

Goal 2: Expand access to public university education and contribute to the economic and cultural development of Texas, with special emphasis on development of the Round Rock Higher Education Center. (public)

Goal 3: Provide a premier, student-centered educational experience that fosters retention and success and is built on academic programs with clearly defi ned learning outcomes and a rigorous level of academic challenge. (student-centered)

Goal 4: Expand educational opportunities, emphasizing doctoral program development, applied scientifi c and technical programs, and other programs that address critical State needs. (doctoral-granting)

Goal 5: Enrich our learning and working environment by attracting and supporting a more diverse faculty, staff , and student body. (diverse)

Goal 6: Develop and manage human, fi nancial, physical, and technological resources eff ectively, effi ciently, and ethically to support the University’s mission.

Th ese key points: excellence, public, student-centered, doctoral-granting, and diverse, were revisited time and time again during the master planning process. Th ey were considered in conjunction with the Guiding Principles of the Campus Master Plan as refl ected graphically in the following matrix.

6

Campus Environment And Facilities Survey

During the Fall 2003 semester at Texas State University-San Marcos, internet surveys were distributed to all Texas State employees (about 1,000 faculty and 2,000 staff ) and 2,500 students, to collect opinions about the campus facilities and environment at Texas State as part of the campus master planning project. A summary of the major fi ndings is provided below:

- Home buildings: A need for remodeling was a major concern of faculty and staff . General remodeling needs, molds, leaks, and ventilation issues were raised by 34% of faculty and 20% of staff in written comments to the survey.

- Physical environment - accessibility: 88% of faculty, 91% of staff , and 84% of students agreed that Texas State needed a common entrance, although 74% of students believed that signage was suffi cient. Sizeable numbers of comments refl ected the diffi culty of navigating campus and building interiors.

- Physical environment-architecture: Just 8% of faculty, 10% of staff , and 20% of students “strongly agreed” that the campus architecture is attractive - the lowest level of strong agreement for items about the campus physical environment. A consistent architectural style was important to 73% of faculty, 72% of staff , and 67% of students. Architecture was the least favorite characteristic of Texas State among faculty and staff .

- Instructional space: 88% of faculty agreed that instructional technology in classrooms has improved over the past fi ve years, but faculty want further improvements in instructional technology. Poor classroom furnishings and insuffi cient classroom space were other areas of common concern for faculty and students - the faculty wanted to see more rooms that seat 75 or fewer students.

- Safety issues - lighting/phones: One-third of faculty, staff , and students believed that night lighting on campus was insuffi cient. Th ere was a general lack of awareness about the locations of emergency call phones by all respondents.

- Safety issues - pedestrians: Faculty and staff were more interested than students in seeing more bicycle paths, seemingly because of a concern for the safety of pedestrians rather than an interest in greater access. Comments by faculty, staff , and students indicated some concern about the safety of pedestrians around vehicular traffi c.

- Small - campus feel: Th ose who believed that Texas State has a “small-campus feel” often cited the Quad layout, where many students take the majority of their classes, or the friendliness of people. Th ose who believed Texas State did not have a small-campus feel generally mentioned the sprawl of campus or its large student enrollment.

- Building design: Natural lighting, accessibility, aesthetics, and common meeting areas were major design elements that faculty and staff would like to see honored in new building designs. Other important design aspects focused on functional space, instructional technology, acoustics, restrooms, furniture, and ventilation.

- Favorite features: Th e natural landscape of Texas State was by far the most liked aspect of the University by faculty, staff , and students.

- Least favorite features: Th e mixed architecture was the least-liked aspect of the campus by faculty and staff . Hills were the feature students least liked due to the hardship of navigating campus. Students were also more likely to dislike the architecture than like it.

Information compiled by the Offi ce of Institutional Research.

7

- Old Main and the Alumni House will not be de-molished or signifi cantly modifi ed on the exterior.

- Academic buildings need to be accessible within the 10/15 minute class change period. Th e class change period will remain the same.

- It is the University’s intention that the President will live in the current house throughout the planning period.

- Th e University will consider the purchase of prop-erty that becomes available. Eff orts will be made to maintain the primary boundaries of University Drive, Ranch Road 12 and Sessom Drive.

- Environmental protection of the San Marcos River is important to the University. Sewell Park and the ponds around JC Kellam Administration, Th eatre Center, and Freeman Aquatic will be retained.

Planning ConstraintsCritical Success Factors Planning Assumptions

Th e following is a list of “critical success factors” for the Campus Master Planning process. Achieving these success factors will ensure that the Plan will serve the University well over the next ten years.

- Th e process will be strongly participatory and continuous and will allow for participation of faculty, staff , students, administration, Board of Regents, and the City of San Marcos throughout the planning process.

- Communication will fl ow through the Assistant Vice President for Finance and Support Services Planning (project leader) to the consultants.

- Th e University community will develop a set of “guiding principles” to guide facility decisions that will enable the University to adapt to chang-ing needs.

- Th e process will be carefully managed to ensure accurate presentation of data as well as adequate time for input and feedback.

- Selection of the consultants will be a joint en-deavor of the Facilities Committee, President’s Cabinet, Texas State University System staff , the Regental Planning Committee, and the Board of Regents.

- Th e process will be very public – the work of the

consultants and all relevant planning informa-tion will be available throughout the develop-ment of the Campus Master Plan.

- Th e process will identify the facility needs, in-frastructure needs, and circulation needs of the University.

- Th e process will identify building site “opportu-nities” (rather than placement of specifi c facili-ties) to enable us to respond eff ectively to unan-ticipated needs, interests, and opportunities.

- Th e process will include development of agreed upon design principles to increase the coherence of the campus image.

Key planning assumptions identifying probable future conditions, outlined in the University Stra-tegic Plan, were adopted as follows:

- Th e Campus Master Plan and facilities shall ac-commodate a future student body of no greater than 30,000 students on the San Marcos cam-pus unless there is a fundamental infrastructure change in San Marcos.

- Th e plan needs to accommodate growth in enroll-ment and the addition of academic programs as prioritized in the university, division and college strategic plans. Identifi ed doctoral programs for the next three to fi ve year period include Computer Science, Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Criminal Justice, and possibly Physical Th erapy.

- Texas State will plan and manage the mix of students in a way that achieves the following: • Maintain a commitment to undergraduate ed-

ucation consistent with Texas State’s mission to serve the needs of Texans while controlling the undergraduate growth rate.

• Increase graduate enrollment as a percentage of the total student body (18% of the SCH by 2015), as resources permit, consistent with Texas State’s desire to be a doctoral intensive university.

• Support eff orts to establish more specifi c en-rollment targets for the University, including targets for the number and academic profi le of entering freshmen and transfer students, as well as targets for specifi c academic programs where appropriate.

• Increase access to in-state students by provid-ing selected undergraduate and graduate pro-grams via distance education opportunities.

• Develop distance education programs in areas where Texas State is the most appropriate pro-vider and where programs can be off ered with the highest level of quality.

• Continue serving the regional adult population, giving priority to those with degree aspiration.

• Continue to pursue the Hispanic Serving In-

stitution designation.

- Th e current number of residence hall beds (5,690) will be maintained along with the residential housing requirements for freshman and sopho-more students. Th erefore, upon the completion of San Jacinto Hall, the University will not build any new residence hall structures within this ten-year planning period unless a building site where a current residence hall sits is identifi ed for another purpose (with the exception of Elliott Hall). If this occurs, the Master Plan should in-clude replacement of the demolished residential structure. Additionally, the University will not replace any university-owned apartments identi-fi ed for demolition.

- Campus land area for the San Marcos campus is not anticipated to be increased or decreased sig-nifi cantly.

- Distribution of parking spaces will match nation-al averages of similar types of institutions (e.g., number of residence hall students, number of commuter students, number of faculty and staff ).

- Research will remain an integral part of the life of the University. Th e emergence of a stronger culture of research will be refl ected in increasing faculty expectations for research facilities. Extra-mural funding for research is expected to grow with annual expenditures increasing from $20 million to $100 million.

- Increase the number of faculty available to serve our students. Th e goal is to be in the middle of the faculty/student ratios of Texas public univer-sities.

- Th e practice of having one centrally located cam-pus library shall continue.

- Campus planning will be a mix of renovation, replacement, and addition of space through new construction. Th e plan will address the Univer-sity’s deferred maintenance backlog and infra-structure needs, in addition to any new projects that come forward.

- Th e university/academic plan and current room inventory (refl ecting fall 2003 audited space) will act as a foundation on which to build a com-prehensive space needs assessment for all depart-ments/offi ces at Texas State. Data collected for projected space needs will determine renovations to existing facilities and new construction.

8

CAMPUS PLANNING METHODOLOGY

Th e campus was divided into three precincts: core, middle, and edge.

In 2004, Texas State hired Broaddus & Associates, an Austin-based program management and consulting services fi rm, and Ayers/Saint/Gross, a Washington DC Architecture and Planning fi rm, to provide guid-ance throughout the master planning process. Broaddus & Associates adheres to the principle that the greatest ability to infl uence project success is in the early planning stages and that the plans should be visionary yet realistic. Th e fi rm’s proven record of managing the design and construction of collegiate projects provide it with a unique insight into the master planning process. Since 1915, Ayers/Saint/Gross has worked with col-lege and university clients to develop a methodol-ogy for creating implementable campus master plans. Th is methodology balances a unique planning phi-losophy and project approach to eff ectively guide the campus planning process. Th e fi rm’s staff of archi-tects, landscape architects and graphic designers with expertise in campus planning and the design of new and renovated academic buildings reinforce its philos-ophy that every campus building must contribute to the overall campus composition. Depending on the specifi c needs of the institution, the team supplements this knowledge with outside specialists in parking and traffi c, mechanical/electrical engineering, civil/stormwater/hydrology, cost estimating, educational programming, economics, and fi nance.

Campus Planning PhilosophyTh e planning team believes in the premise that the principles guiding the physical design and character of an institution are the same as those aff ecting its aca-demic undertaking. What can be said of the physical elements can also be said of the academic components, that is, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

Th is notion of reciprocity between an institution’s academic mission and its physical plan is at the foundation of this design philosophy. Supporting this is the core belief that for physical planning to be truly successful, it must grow from sound prin-ciples while balancing the visionary with the real-istic. To achieve this, there must be a collaborative and interactive approach that deliberately involves all interested stakeholders from the university. Planning ApproachTh e planning approach for Texas State University-San Marcos led to the development of a physical plan which eff ectively embodies the institution’s academic mission by integrating fi ve distinct phases of work through continuous on-site workshops. Th e fi ve phases were Observations, Conceptual Plan, Pre-cinct Studies, Design Guidelines, and Final Plan.

Th is process was not a linear one, with sequential events occurring in an exact order. It can be com-pared to simultaneously using a telescope and a mi-croscope, meaning to think globally in order to act locally, recognizing that the success of the plan should be determined by the execution of specifi c details on the scale of a precinct, building, or walkway. Th e fi rst step, Observations, involved analysis of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the campus to generate a set of guiding principles that refl ected the philosophies, culture and setting of the institution. Th ese guiding principles served as a foundation for the creation of a Conceptual Plan. Th e Conceptual Plan is the big picture of how the campus should be developed over time. Th is Conceptual Plan was then tested and verifi ed through a series of Precinct Studies that examine a number of issues at a fi ner grain of detail. Concurrently, Design Guidelines

are developed that illustrate how the details can be executed. At the conclusion, all the information was consolidated to form a unifi ed Final Plan.

ObservationsTh e Observations Phase involved the accumula-tion and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data necessary to generate a realistic portrait of the university. Th e planning team relied upon existing data, studies, visual assessment, interviews, and separate, ongoing planning and design eff orts. Information pertaining to the following conditions was gathered, analyzed, and documented in the form of reports, diagrams, and presentations. - Analysis of Programs Strategic Initiatives and Projected Growth of all University Units - Analysis of Precedent Historic Development Peer Institutions Industry Standards and Models - Analysis of Place Natural and Built Systems History Building Use and Character Landscape and Vegetation Centers and Edges Surface Hydrology Geology and Landform Water and Sewer HVAC, Electric and Telecommunications Codes and Regulations Contextual Infl uences Transportation Systems and Parking Access Circulation

Conceptual PlanTo initiate the Conceptual Plan Phase, planning participants examined a set of guiding principles stating the philosophical positions of the institu-tion. Th ese principles, together with the informa-tion accumulated during the observations phase, informed the content and composition of the Con-ceptual Plan. With a broad brush approach, like a “sketch be-fore a painting”, the plan began to illustrate the structure, layout and relationships of planned open space, circulation systems, buildings, and focal points. Th is plan was then used to describe devel-opment ideas, obtain input, and build consensus from stakeholders. Proposed and existing build-ings and grounds were illustrated and diff erenti-ated from one another.

Precinct StudiesPrecinct Studies explored discrete areas of the cam-pus at a greater scale of detail in order for the plan-ning team to test technical feasibility and refi ne plan information generated in the Conceptual Plan Phase. Th e team walked each precinct and dis-cussed constraints and opportunities with users. Building setbacks and massing, envelope criteria, engineering systems, pedestrian and vehicular cir-culation systems, service points, treatment of open space and entrances, general code compliance, and landscape composition were addressed in the docu-ments for this phase of work. Th e campus plan above illustrates how the Texas State campus was divided into three precincts: core, middle, and edge.

9

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all those individuals and groups who helped in the crafting of this plan. Th eir thoughtful input, feedback, review, and in-formed comments have helped shape the Master Plan into its fi nal form.

Associated Student GovernmentFaculty SenateStaff CouncilPresident’s CabinetUniversity CouncilCity Planners/Planning and Zoning Commission City Manager and Directors City CouncilCollege of Applied Arts CouncilMcCoy College of Business Administration CouncilCollege of Education CouncilCollege of Fine Arts and Communication CouncilCollege of Health Professions CouncilCollege of Liberal Arts CouncilCollege of Science CouncilTh e Graduate College CouncilUniversity College CouncilDowntown Advisory Board and Main Street AssociationExtended Business Services CouncilExtended Information Technology CouncilExtended Student Aff airs CouncilProvost and Direct ReportsUniversity Advancement Council and Alumni Board Campus Facilities Planning CommitteeChamber of CommerceLULAC, Rotary, KiwanisSan Marcos Community San Marcos Transportation Advisory Board

Design GuidelinesConcurrent with the Precinct Studies and the Final Plan documentation was the development of De-sign Guidelines for buildings and grounds in order to guide, through a codifi ed system, architecturally unifi ed precincts and campus wide planning propos-als. Th e information generated here was integrated to inform decisions in the precinct plans. Th e fi nal document serves as a fl exible reference for the evalua-tion of existing and future implementation projects.

Design Guidelines describe height and massing of buildings, disposition, primary entries and service areas, street and open space proportions, and the detailing characteristics of each. Building gross square footage and appropriate use, if determin-able, were included. Interrelationships of build-ings, streets, and open spaces to each other and to the overall plan were also articulated.

Campus-wide architectural guidelines defi ne ar-chitectural features, styles, and vocabulary of new facilities throughout the campus. Building fen-estration, treatment of openings, organizational elements, and appropriate architectural materials were evaluated. Guidelines for the grounds and open space fi x and describe the landscape, architectural treat-ment of specifi c types of streets, public spaces, parks, and woodland environments. Guidelines for treatment of pavement, outdoor lighting (aes-thetic and functional), walls and enclosure sys-tems, planting and site furnishings, signage, and other elements that identify special spaces were created. A detailed audit of existing defi ciencies or remedial actions was outside of the scope of the campus plan.

Final PlanTh e Final Plan consists of documents and presenta-tions that aggregate the plan information prepared in previous project phases. Th is takes the form of a plan view showing existing and proposed buildings and open space and illustrative before and after perspective views. Also included is an implemen-tation plan, recommending how this plan can be incrementally put in place over time. Th e forum in which the planning team worked was based on a series of intensive workshops conducted on campus. During each workshop, the planning team engaged members of the university commu-nity in dialogue, fact fi nding, and decision making. Each workshop spanned from one to three days and included interview sessions, walking tours and concept development. Following each workshop, the planning team con-tinued to develop design concepts and prepare doc-umentation at each phase. Th is approach allowed the Master Plan to be more cohesive in concept and much more effi cient in execution. Th e fi nal planning documents are a series of coordinated in-dividual chapters and reports that address specifi c areas of concern and allow for continued updates and expansion. Th e overall schedule for this plan-ning process was approximately one year.

In traditional master planning, a large multi-disci-plined consulting team begins work simultaneously, gathering data and reaching conclusions regarding their own individual focus of work. Unfortunately, this approach can lead to one issue, such as parking or traffi c, becoming the dominant form giver for the Master Plan. Another downside to this approach is

the enormous amount of resources devoted to the inventory and mapping of “what is” as opposed to thinking about “what should be or could be.”

Working in an incremental process, the planning team for Texas State University-San Marcos started with a small core team of planners who, in conjunc-tion with the Steering Committee (composed of sev-en senior university representatives), established the broad goals and objectives of the process and identi-fi ed the initial opportunities and constraints of the plan. Utilizing this approach, the core team devel-oped and refi ned the initial vision and statement of principles and goals for the Master Plan. Specialty consultants were then brought onto the team to as-sist in technical issues and to complete specifi c stud-ies or analysis as the information was required. ConclusionIn the end, the campus plan is like a good academic curriculum – one that combines tradition and in-novation. Equally important, it is visionary and re-alistic, while being consensus driven to ensure incre-mental implementation and stakeholder support.

Conceptual Plan diagrams identifying open spaces.

10