This project was the result of several intersecting vectors. These include an anemic and incomplete sense of place, a perceived lack of new investment on the North Campus, the lack of a published comprehensive plan, a general restlessness among North Campus stakeholders about the pace and scope of development, and the willingness of Interim President Joe White to fund a study.

There are, to be sure, positive qualities about the North Campus, including its natural features, spaciousness and relative calm. But these are amenities considered by many to be insufficient to attract and retain the best students and faculty, not to mention provide the range and quality of life that the 15,000 or so people who live, work and study there deserve.

In general, there seems to be a pervasive and increasingly vocal consensus among North Campus deans, faculty, students, and staff that, although the North Campus will never equal the Central Campus in stature and intensity,

It may actually be falling further behind in terms of amenities, facilities and desirable destinations. Despite the fact that the North Campus is now two generations old and home to a student population as large as that of Yale University, there are few reasons for people to voluntarily visit or spend time there.

There is the usual panoply of workplace destinations—classrooms, laboratories, offices, libraries, and dormitories—but few places where people want to be when they are not working. There is also a lack of critical university facilities, such as a large auditorium (the largest, Chrysler Auditorium, seats only 240), a true student union, a performing arts venue, and perhaps a non-denominational place of meditation and prayer.

The biggest deficit . . . although there has been improvements in Pierpont Commons, the North Campus has very limited retail space, especially for daily services (e.g. barber shops, hair salons, restaurants, drug prescriptions, dry cleaners, etc.) and for books, music, food, and clothing. At present, an automobile is needed to procure these services or goods, at considerable personal and social cost in economic, environmental and social terms. (A study for a new suburban campus at Merced, CA, in the state University system, indicates that the energy consumption and related environmental pollution is up to six times as great as a result of student, faculty, and staff commuting and vehicle trips taken during the day to other destinations as from heating, lighting and cooling the campus buildings!)

There is another major reason to invest more heavily in the North Campus. The Central Campus is essentially complete, unless it invades adjoining or nearby urban fabric or builds more high-rise buildings or both. These two strategies seem politically explosive, physically problematic, and architecturally compromised (especially if we want to maintain the present feeling of a compact, leafy, and walkable campus).

It is physically possible to squeeze more buildings onto the Central Campus, but only with great architectural discipline (arguably more than the University has shown in recent history). Expansion of facilities on the East Campus (east of Rte. 23, near Domino Farms) should be done very selectively if at all, as it would contribute to auto-dependent sprawl and dilution of the University’s coherence and identity.

As our world starts the new century, as the University of Michigan under new leadership, nears its bicentennial, and as the North Campus enters its second half-century, it seems a good time to step back, review old dreams, visions and plans, take pride in successes, and look at possible course corrections, and new visions. And then to redouble our efforts.

I would like to thank the many people who knowingly and unknowingly contributed to this project. First, Joe White who contributed $40,000 to underwrite student summer internships and work-study positions and production expenses, without which this effort would have never happened. To Kit McCullough, who taught the Spring Term urban design studio that analyzed the North Campus and generated four preliminary plans, and to Professor Roy Strickland, Director of the Master of Urban Design Program, who willingly provided students for the studio; and, for their hard work and ideas, to those students, who are listed on the cover page. Four of those students, were hired to continue to work over the balance of the summer with two Master of Architecture students, Rebecca Raup and Katie Slattery, who especially worked beyond the call of duty.

In the final push for the exhibit opening on October 7, they were assisted by fellow students Jayanthi Madhavan and Amanda Niemi.

I want to acknowledge the importance and impact of the excellent analysis and schematic planning work of Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates, as well as Robert Venturi’s and Denise Scott-Brown’s willingness to participate in the final review of the Spring Term studio. The other North Campus Deans—Steve Director, Karen Wolff, Bryan Rogers and John King—were also generous with their time and input, as were other North Campus stakeholders, such as Brad Canale and Judith Pitney of the College of Engineering, Mike Miller of the Media Union and Nancy Bartlett of the Bently Library. Also, there were key players in the Central Administration, starting with Interim President Joe White, Provost Paul Courant, Vice President Royster Harper, Interim CFO Tim Slattow, Campus Planner Fred Mayer, Housing Director Bill Zeller, and others to whom I apologize for forgetting.

At Taubman College, the assistance of Mark Krecic, Grace Wu, Ken Arbogast-Wilson, Maureen Perdomo, Mary Anne Drew, Bill Manspeaker, Linda Mills, Sandy Patton, and Helen Hoskins was invaluable.

Last, I want to thank my wife Kathleen, who tolerated and even encouraged some late night and weekend work this summer and early fall, not to mention letting me indulge my other academic conceits and pursue my other academic pre-occupations.

Douglas Kelbaugh FAIA, Dean

Taubman College or Architecture + Urban Planning
October, 2002