v34 n2 hashimshony haina

8/12/2019 V34 N2 Hashimshony Haina

1/15

Designing the University of

the FutureThese authors identify transforming trends in society that are affecting the mission of

universities, analyze the impact of those trends on the institutional and spatial structure

of universities, and then summarize the factors that planners should be paying attention

to in the future design of their institutions.

by Rifca Hashimshony and Jacov Haina

Rifca Hashimshony is an architect and

an associate professor in the Faculty of

Architecture and Town Planning at the

TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology. For

many years she was assistant dean anddeputy dean in charge of undergraduate

studies. She teaches various design studios,

and was involved in an international project

initiated by Professor Alexander Tzonis

of TU Delft, dealing with the design of

the University of the Future. Among her

research interests are the future of higher

education, scientific education for young

children, and building conservation.

Jacov Haina is an architect and teaches

Architectural Design in the Faculty of

Architecture and Town Planning at theTechnionIsrael Institute of Technology.

His masters thesis dealt with the design

of the University of the Future. He is

currently completing a second masters

degree in Philosophy at the University of

Haifa. His current research includes the

history of university architecture in Israel.

Introduction

We are currently witnessing profound social, cultural, and

technological changes that are transforming traditional

institutions. The university (as defined by The Oxford

Students Dictionary of Current English as an institution

for advanced teaching, conferring degrees and engaging in

academic research) is one of the institutions being

transformed, as discussed in numerous recent articles

(Delanty 1998a, 1998b, 2001; Smith and Webster 1997;

Tzonis 1999). The university remains the primary center of

higher learning throughout the world, as well as the main

repository of accumulated wisdom (Bell 1973). It continues

to be a powerful force even after half a millennium (Altbach

1998). However, prevailing critiques raise doubts about the

future of the university as an institution (Lyotard 1984;

Readings 1996).

We disagree with these critiques. They do not consider

the resiliency of these institutions and their ability to change

to meet societal needs. Instead, we argue that universities

will undergo major organizational and physical changes as

they adapt their activities to meet present and future needs.

In discussions about the future of the university, little

has been said about how these changes will affect its spatial

layout, even though a universitys physical characteristics

must complement and strengthen its mission. This article

addresses that issue and provides an overview of the

Copyright Society for College and University Planning (SCUP). All rights reserved. | Planning for Higher Education 5


2/15

6 JanuaryMarch 2006

physical layout of the future university that responds to the

above-mentioned changes. We first describe the development

of the mission of the university in the western world and

how that mission has determined the basic architectural

prototypes of university design since the Middle Ages.

Based on this review, we suggest that it is time to re-examine

these prototypes. We identify the main characteristics of

contemporary society that are causing universities to

re-evaluate their missions and analyze their impact on the

institutional and spatial structure of the university. We then

discuss and evaluate four possible scenarios for the design

of the future university. Finally, we summarize the important

factors that should be considered by higher education

planners seeking to effectively direct the future design

of their institutions.

The Growth of the University as a SocialInstitution and the Development of itsSpatial Layout1

Although higher education existed in ancient times

(e.g., Platos Academy in Greece), its institutionalization

is attributed to the Middle Ages. The term university

derives from the Latin universitas, meaning corporation

or guild, since, in the medieval world, scholars were

considered to be a guild of specialists.

Universities initially emerged as institutions in Paris

and Bologna at the end of the 11th century. They evolved

from the cathedral schools and continued the tradition ofthe preservation of knowledge that had previously been

the responsibility of monasteries. These universities

developed to meet the new needs of urban society for

professional training, such as medicine and civil law, and

had no permanent buildings. They operated from existing

buildings, usually no larger than the size of a city block.

Where necessary, universities were divided among several

unconnected buildings located in different parts of the city.

As the number of students increased and more fields

of study were added, it became necessary to build buildings

to house university activities in one location. The creation

of permanent structures marked the establishment of the

university as an independent institution (Cobban 1992).

The first important prototype for university design2

was the single college3 edifice, which later became the

most common type of university building in England. The

first college to be built was probably Merton College at

Oxford, founded in 1264 (figure 1A). Its distinct

architectural structurea square unit surrounding an internal

courtreflected its social and educational character. It was

designed to house nearly everything the students and their

teachers needed: spaces to study, eat, sleep, and pray.

According to Turner (1990), there were several reasons for

the enclosed quadrangle in the design of the English college:

the influence of the monastery cloister, the assurance of

protection from the outside, the ease of surveillance over

students, and the optimal utilization of small lots. This

closed configuration reflects the severe character, the strict

discipline, and the rigid daily routine of the college. Over time,

as the number of students increased, additional colleges

were founded, thus forming clusters (figure 1B).

The university remained relatively unchanged from the

Middle Ages until the late 18th and early 19th centuries,

when religion gradually lost its dominant force and the

European universities became institutions of modernlearning and research. The Humboldt University of Berlin

(founded by Wilhelm von Humboldt in 1809), in which

modern standards of academic freedom were pioneered, is

representative of these trends. The German model of the

university as a complex of graduate schools performing

advanced research and experimentation had a worldwide

influence in defining the role of the university in society,

but not in offering a new, innovative design.

The earliest American institutions of higher learning

were Harvard University (founded in 1636), the College of

William and Mary (1693), and Yale University (1701). The

modern American university, arguably the most influentialacademic model today, derives from three basic ideas: the

English collegiate model, the German research university of

the 19th century, and the American concept of service to

society (Altbach 1998). The Morrill Act of 1862 refocused

the mission of higher education by creating public-land-grant

universities with a commitment to providing practical

education for the new industrial society, thereby defining

an important social role for American universities. The

American universities represent the concept of an

academical villagea term coined by Thomas Jefferson,

the designer of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville

in 1817 (figure 1C), to describe universities as communities

in themselves, where shared learning infused daily life,

similar to the English colleges (Turner 1990). But unlike the

cloistered character of the European colleges, a more open

and dispersed spatial model evolved in America. Jeffersons

plan for the University of Virginia, for example, comprised

pavilions, each with living quarters upstairs and classrooms

Rifca Hashimshony and Jacov Haina


3/15

Planning for Higher Education 7

Designing the University of the Future

downstairs. Each pavilion was identified with a specific

subject and also served as the place of residence of the

professor who taught that subject.

The Latin term campus (field) describes the distinctive

physical character of American universities. It was first

used to describe the college grounds, but gradually came

to mean the entire property, including buildings, and later

became the synonym for all university compounds.

Muthesius (2000) sees the use of the term campus

as an attempt to distinguish the higher education institution

from its surroundings and to define its isolated andindependent character.

According to Turner (1990, p. 4), campus sums up the

distinctive physical qualities of the American college, but

also its integrity as a self-contained community and its

architectural expression of educational and social ideals.

The romantic idea of isolation from the city and civilization

came to its pure expression in the American college, located

in nature and removed from the corrupting forces of the

city (Turner 1990, p. 12). In addition to the learning facilities,

the American campus contains many other functions for

students comfort, including residence halls and sports

facilities. This typology was later adopted by many designers

for campuses throughout the world (e.g., Hebrew

University in Jerusalem, designed by Kaufmann, Klarwein,

and Rau [figure 1D]).

At the beginning of the 20th century, universities

blossomed throughout the world. Their organizationalstructures changed as additional fields of knowledge gave

rise to the division of universities into different faculties

and departments. However, in contrast to earlier periods

when higher education remained largely a private enterprise

in most countries, World War I strengthened the ties

between the university and the state. The state increased

Figure 1 A-E Main Layout Prototypes: Schematic Presentation of Examples

Single Building

A: Merton College,

Oxford (1264)

C: University of Virginia,

Charlottesville (1817)

Designed by Thomas

Jefferson

E: University of Essex,

Colchester (1963)

Designed by

Kenneth Capon

B: Oxford Colleges D: The Hebrew University,

Jerusalem (1954)

Designed by Kaufmann,

Klarwein, and Rau

F: The Free University of

Berlin (1964)

Designed by Candilis, Josic,

Woods, and Schiedhelm

Campus Megastructure


4/15

8 JanuaryMarch 2006

its financial support; in return, academics provided research

in support of the war effort. Universities no longer conducted

research for their own sake, but tried to develop applied

research for the benefit of society. The result was stronger

collaboration with external factors, such as industries, and

greater openness to the outside world.

Since World War II, there has been an increasing

demand for higher education as a result of facilitated access

to education through programs such as the 1944 GI Bill of

Rights in the United States, the fact that the academic

degree has become a means to upward mobility, and the

need for more educated workers to support economic

growth. As a result, new universities continue to be

established all over the world, and existing universities

have expanded to serve the growing number of students.

In Britain alone, for example, at least six new universities

were built during the 1960s.The term multiversity, first used by Kerr (1995),

expresses the fact that university activities became

increasingly complex from both the organizational and

the spatial point of view. The physical dimensions of the

campus became so large that the distances prohibited good

communication among its different parts. The approach

of duplicating architectural spaces no longer worked. The

university required new and radically different designs to

support the increasing complexity of its organization.

These new universities were designed as a single large

concentrated building, called a megastructure. The term

megastructure usually means a vast structure, containingsome of a citys functions, including dwellings, leisure, and

commerce, that is able to adjust and grow according to

specific needs, as described by Maki (cited in Banham

1976, p. 217): A large frame in which all the functions of a

city or part of a city are housed. It has been made possible

by present day technology. A number of university designs

were based on this spatial model, e.g., the University of

Essex in 1963 (figure 1E) and the Free University of Berlin

in 1964 (figure 1F).

The concept of the megastructure never fulfilled the

designers expectations. In many cases, its outsize, colossal

dimensions caused the destruction of the existing urban

fabric because it did not fit the scale of the existing buildings

and the size of the city blocks. The megastructure also

proved to be a failure in respect to flexibility, since it did not

allow easy expansion or interchange of activities within the

structure, as expected by the designers. This model was

abandoned in the late 1960s.

Factors that May Definethe Future University

The highly varied and at times conflicting societal pressures

placed on the university have generated discussion aboutthe need to redefine the role of this institution to better

serve the needs of contemporary society. Delanty (2001)

argues that the university is still the only institution in

society where one can find together the following four

activities: research, education, professional training, and

intellectual criticism. Indeed, universities have existed for

so many years because of the special mix of these four

roles in one institution. However, as a result of the changing

demands placed on universities, the relative importance of

each activity must be re-evaluated in the future. It is likely

that the balance between research and teaching will

change, while more tasks related to service to society maybe added. Decisions made about balancing these activities

will have a critical impact on the distribution of spaces

within the university.

The following factors are particularly important in

defining the nature of the future university: financial

challenges, collaboration with industry, increasing student

population and greater diversity, new patterns of teaching

and learning, growth of interdisciplinary fields of knowledge,

and openness to the community.

Financial challenges. As government support for

universities has declined, these institutions have been

forced to look for new funding sources. Commercializing

knowledge, such as filing patents expected to generate

revenues; designing and providing noncredit, cutting-edge

educational programs for private and public sector employers;

and cutting expenses by privatizing some of the services

offered to students and staff alike, such as residence halls,

are some of the methods adopted by universities to cope

with their financial difficulties. As a consequence of these

changes, Jarvis (2000, p. 52) states that universities

should now be more responsive to the demands of

market, recognize the need to change their ways, be less

independent and become more efficient.

Collaboration with industry. The character of

industry is changing rapidly in the context of the competitive

forces of an increasingly global economy. Particularly

notable are the growing importance of information-based

and high-technology industries and the central place of

knowledge in todays economy (Bell 1973; Castells 1996;

Toffler 1981). The scientific knowledge that can be provided



5/15



by universities is critical to the success of these industries

and has encouraged the growth of collaboration between

industry and university. However, while the commercialization

of knowledge helps universities solve some of their financial

problems, it also reduces their past monopoly power over

the creation of knowledge, since more research is performed

today outside the walls of the university.

Increasing student population and greater diversity.

In recent years the growing student population has

become increasingly heterogeneous; universities are no

longer reserved for the elite. Students come from much

more diverse social classes, the proportion of female

students has increased dramatically, and there is a growing

demand from students who are older than the traditional

college age and who are tied to a geographic location. This

change reflects the democratization of higher education,

the importance of knowledge to our society, and thechanging structure of the labor force, i.e., greater demand

for educated workers (white-collar workers) and less

demand for laborers (blue-collar workers). This rapid growth

of a more diverse student population will further increase

both the number and type of institutions of higher education

and will affect, in turn, decisions about the missions and

physical requirements of universities.

New patterns of teaching and learning. Major

changes in technology that have occurred in recent years,

particularly the improvements in computers and software

and the rapid growth of Internet applications, have provided

access to digital knowledge resources. This has greatly

increased options for communication between individuals

in different places at different times. These technological

improvements have created the option of a virtual university

in which virtual spaces replace the existing physical ones.

Terms like distance learning and electronic learning

represent the possibility of learning activities unrelated to

time and place. However, these virtual universities generally

do not offer students the kinds of informal interactions found

in the traditional face-to-face campus learning experience that

stimulate learning beyond the formal educational experience.

The task of universities to bring people together and

allow for cross-fertilization of minds is considered by some

researchers as the main reason for their existence. Kumar

(1997, p. 31) says in this respect, I want to emphasize the

informal side of university life, not as residual but a centralfeature of universities. Also, the sense of community

and the university spirit created by physical spaces, an

important part of the educational role of the university, do not

exist at this time in the virtual university. Some combination

of virtual and physical spaces might offer a solution.

Growth of interdisciplinary fields of knowledge. The

classical university was based on a hierarchical structure of

major disciplines that were then divided into subdisciplines.

This structure has been retained in the current university,

as shown in figure 2A. The faculties and departments,

B: Possible Future OrganizationA: Existing Organization

PrimaryElements

SecondaryElements

DisciplinaryContent

InterdisciplinaryContent

Figure 2 A-B Schematic Description of Changes in the Organizational Structure of the University


6/15

10 JanuaryMarch 2006

represented by the vertical elements, usually are located in

a defined physical space. Interactions across disciplines,

shown by horizontal elements, occur sporadically and often

reflect only the interests of individual faculty working

together in an interdisciplinary project.

In contrast, todays structure of knowledge is increasingly

interdisciplinary in character, as shown in figure 2B. In the

future university, the horizontal elements containing the

evolving interdisciplinary frameworks, which were secondary

in the classical organization (figure 2A), may become primary

elements. In time, these elements might also need defined

physical spaces.

Openness to the community. As a result of increasing

standards of living and life expectancy, more people around

the world have more leisure time. There is a large public

seeking meaningful activities to fill its free time, and the

university can be just the right framework for this population.The public opportunity to attend lectures, special courses,

and evening activities may strengthen the image of the

university as a central institution, responding to the needs

of society. The implication is an increasing interaction

between the university and the outside world. As a result,

the boundaries of the university campus will become more

penetrable and its facilities will be used more efficiently

for mixed activities.

Possible Effects of Institutional Changeson the Physical Structure of the

University

The basic architectural prototypes of university design, as

described previously, should be re-examined in view of the

forces for change that are affecting the missions of higher

education institutions. The design of a future university

should be related to the expected changes in the activities

of that institution.

Five variables typically are used to characterize the

physical structure of existing universities and can be

used to conceptualize the future university: size, spatial

configuration, boundaries and accessibility, functional

organization, and location. An analysis of the impact of

these variables gives us better insights into the possible

spatial characteristics of the future university. These

characteristics can serve as a point of reference for

planners and policymakers and should also be examined

with regard to considerations such as values, institutional

goals, and pragmatic constraints.

Size (small vs. large). Size refers to the total built

area, exclusive of open spaces between buildings. Figure

3 illustrates three forces for change that may affect the

size of the future university. First, moving activities into the

virtual space by use of distance learning and communication

technologies may reduce or eliminate the need for large

lecture halls, library study areas, and related spaces.

Second, privatization may cause some of the classic

functions of the university, such as dormitories and sport

facilities, to be located elsewhere, thus decreasing the

area of the university. Finally, strengthening relationswith industry may affect the size of the university in two

opposing ways: new functions may be imported and located

within the university compound, thereby increasing its size,

while other functions may be exported and attached to

existing industries, resulting in a decrease in the size of

the university.

Spatial configuration (compact vs. decentralized).

The concept of the confined university, as in the campus

and the megastructure, should be reconsidered since

contradictory forces are in operation. On the one hand,

the need for internal cohesion regarding new modes of

knowledge production, the growing need for collaboration,and the importance of linking different fields of knowledge

may encourage the continuation of centralization. In

contrast, as discussed previously, some current institutional

trends indicate a tendency towards a higher degree of

decentralization due to privatization and the option to study

and work at home or elsewhere off campus. However,

diffused spatial patterns may decrease possibilities for

interpersonal interaction and harm the valuable sense of a

universitys community. The social quality of the university

and the options it creates for diverse formal and informal

interactions therefore also need to be considered.

Boundaries and accessibility (open vs. closed).

The boundaries of the university are both physical and

conceptual. They define the degree of accessibility to the

university by determining the openness of the institution

to different populations that are not part of the university

community. The historical notion of the Ivory Tower

embodies the isolated and closed character of many


The design of a future university should

be related to the expected changes in the

activities of that institution.


7/15

universities. This closed-ness is also typical of the

previously-described spatial typologies. The growing need

for collaboration with industry, the new openness to the

community, and the changes in the organizational structure

of the university may well result in the blurring of its physical

boundaries. The integration of students and academic staff

in the life of the community and the emerging social role

of the university as a bridge to the public also become

highly important.

Functional organization (zoning vs. mixed uses).Rigid functional organization or spatial zoning was appropriate

when departments were isolated and knowledge was

divided into discrete disciplines. However, collaborative

research and interdisciplinary knowledge can have a major

influence on the spatial structure of the university. The

need for an environment of mixed uses is enhanced by the

existing possibility of studying and working from different

places and by collaboration with industry. These changes

can be implemented through the universitys emerging

interdisciplinary physical frameworks. Based on the new

communication technologies, multifunctional buildings

may also appear, mixing different knowledge operations

(production, distribution, and preservation) with leisure

activities and even residence. The mixed-uses strategy,

with shorter physical distances between different functions,

supports more flexible and spontaneous activities suited to

current dynamic lifestyles.A recent example of such a mixed-use building is the

Stata Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

designed by Frank O. Gehry (inaugurated May 2004). It

houses three main tenantsthe Computer Science and

Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Laboratory for

Information and Decision Systems, and the Department of

Linguistics and Philosophy. In addition to the functional yet



Parts of the

Library

Lecture

Halls

Dormitories

Privatized Dormitories

Virtual Library

Virtual Classes Computerization

Privatization

Collaboration withIndustry

Physical Space

Virtual Space

Industry

Figure 3 Forces for Change Determining the Size of the University


8/15

flexible work environment, it also contains lounges and

gathering areas that are home to different research

groups. A town square provides meeting and socializing

opportunities; a sky-lit student street, a public arcade for

the MIT community, runs the entire length of the ground

floor. There is also a cafe, a childcare center for 80 children,

a fitness center, a faculty dining area, and many other

related facilities.

Location (integrated vs. isolated). Little can be

said about the location of the future university relative to

city environs. The concept of the university as a site of

interconnectivity, epitomized by its increasing collaboration

with industry and other knowledge institutions and by its

growing openness to the community, can be considered

conducive to a specific location inside a city or near industry

or a community. Developments in communication technologies

and transportation, on the other hand, minimize the

importance of physical location.

It is probable that only some of the above-mentioned

spatial tendencies will be realized. The alternative values

for each of the five variables are represented in figure 4.

Different kinds of institutions can be formed, by applying

different values to each variable, as will be demonstrated

in the next section.



Variables characterizing the physical structure

Outsidethe city

Border ofthe city

Center ofthe city

S

L

Medium

M

Compact

Semi-compact

Decentralized

Zoning

Mixeduses

Semi-open

Closed

Spatial

Configuration

Location

Size

Functional

Organization

Boundaries

Large

Open/No

boundariesSmall

Figure 4 Graphic Presentation of Alternative Values for Each Spatial Variable


9/15

The Design of the Future University:Possible Scenarios

The preceding discussion has shown that many factors will

affect the decisions made by universities as they plan theirfuturewhether they are existing institutions adapting to

the forces of change or entirely new universities yet to be

built. It is impossible to predict what the physical layout of

the future university will be since there are myriad possible

options.

There are three main uncertainties that we believe will

be the major forces defining the future university:

the volume of activities that will occur in the virtual

space

the degree to which the university will maintain its

compact spatial configuration

the degree to which the university will maintain its

closed-ness

To illustrate some of these options, three basic scenarios4

for future universities are discussed: the Mini-University,

the New Campus, and the University-City. A fourth

scenario is based on the combination of the first two

scenarios. As shown in figure 5, each scenario is generated

by applying alternative values, possibly extreme ones, to

the above three uncertainties to illustrate the different

combinations and intensities of institutional changes. To

make the scenarios more coherent and concrete, academic

features such as fields of knowledge and/or the social

nature of the university are also described. Figure 6

illustrates the characteristics of each scenarios physical

structure in terms of the five spatial variables.

Scenario 1: the Mini-University. As shown in figure

5A, this scenario is based on a large volume of activities

being conducted in the virtual space, an organization that is

physically very compact, and institutional boundaries that

are relatively closed.

This is the model of a compact urban university,

containing only knowledge-related activities and based on

intensive integration of activities in the virtual space. It is

usually research-oriented, producing application-oriented

and interdisciplinary knowledge. From the institutional

point of view, this means high levels of privatization andcomputerization, but a low level of openness to the

community. The Mini-University collaborates strongly with

industry and other institutions such as hospitals. Although

its core activity is research, it might also cater to exceptional

undergraduate students who might later become researchers.

Functions such as leisure, culture, and housing are

not included in this type of university; rather, these are

privatized activities provided by the neighboring city. The



Virtual Space Compactness Closed-ness

B. The New Campus

C. The University-City

A. The Mini-University

High Degree

Low Degree

Medium Degree

D. The Combined

Scenario (A+B)

Figure 5 Values Applied to the Three Main Uncertainties to Generate the Four Scenarios


10/15

university will be a single structure of indeterminate size,

possibly even a skyscraper, consisting mainly of large

computer laboratories, with little division into subterritories.

One could say that this Mini-University is an elaboration of

the classic single building typology discussed previously.

This design will facilitate social interaction and

face-to-face encounters in the computer laboratories and

the spaces surrounding them. The physical space of this

university serves as a collective bridge to the virtual space.

It does not support the existence of disciplines requiring



Spatial Variables

S

L

Medium

M

Compact

Semi-compact

Decentralized

Mixed uses

No boundaries

Spatial

Configuration

Location

Size

Functional

Organization

Boundaries

Large

Small Border of

the city

Center of

the city

Border ofthe city

Center ofthe city

Center ofthe city

Mixed uses Border ofthe city

Center ofthe city

Semi-open

Open/Noboundaries

Mixed use

Mixed uses

A.

The Mini-University

B.

The New Campus

C.

The University-City

MS

Medium Semi- Compact Semi-open& Small compact

D.

Combined

Scenario

Figure 6 Graphic Presentation of the Spatial Characteristics of Each of the Four Scenarios


11/15

large physical spaces such as workshops or laboratories. The

need for laboratory space will be satisfied by using either

virtual laboratories or the laboratories at other institutions.

The characteristics of the Mini-Universitys physical

structure are described below and are represented graphically

in figure 6A.

Size. The size is small, due to the intensive integration

of distance learning and communication technologies,

and because additional functions such as cafeterias

will be supplied by the surrounding neighborhood.

Spatial configuration. The physical spaces are compact

and concentrated in one unit, although other activities

will be available via communication technologies.

Boundaries and accessibility. The boundaries are semi-

open and involve strong connections with other organi-

zations, but little integration with the outside commu-

nity since the university offers no benefits (e.g., cultur-

al activities) to the community.

Functional organization. The variety of functions includ-

ed in this type of university is limited, but the compact

space is organized in a flexible manner since most of

the activities are computer-based. It is possible to envi-

sion an elaboration of this type that would also include

living quarters and other social and cultural elements,

such as a skyscraper, returning to the concept of the

traditional college.

Location.The location is preferably in the city center,

easily accessed by public transportation, and close toamenities such as food and leisure activities. The small

size permits this universitys integration into the city

center from a financial point of view. However, the

small size also permits its location on the borders of

the city, if necessary, for example, to locate it in the

vicinity of industry.

The Open University may serve as a partial example

of a Mini-University. It started in England in the early 1960s

as a genuinely multimedia concept, combining broadcast

lectures with correspondence texts and visits to conventional

universities. Thanks to the technological developments of

the last decades, it developed into a distance learninguniversity, although most of the courses include face-to-face

components such as group tutorials, laboratory work, or

field trips. In addition, periodic symposia are held at the

Open University study centers dispersed throughout the

country. These study centers also provide library services

and learning aids and serve as a meeting place for students

(with or without tutors). Unlike the Mini-University, the

Open University is not research-oriented.

Evaluation. The Mini-University has low operational

costs and is flexible regarding location. The internal

configuration also allows for some degree of flexibility,

but possibilities for growth are limited. It enables social

encounters and interactions, but the traditional sense of

community does not exist.

Scenario 2: the New Campus.This scenario is based

on a medium volume of activities in the virtual space, a

medium degree of compactness of the physical space,

and open institutional boundaries (figure 5B).

It is based on the campus typology, with separate

buildings set in a green area, but in a more compact physical

layout. This design thus maintains the classical character of

the university, including spatial autonomy, while introducing

necessary adaptations to present reality. From theinstitutional point of view, this means a low degree of

privatization, a medium degree of computerization and

collaboration with industry, and a very high degree of

openness to the community.

The New Campus will act in two spacesthe virtual

and the physicalsimultaneously. The virtual space will

mainly complement the physical one, thus allowing some

of the physical spaces, like large lecture halls and libraries,

to be replaced. This type of university will have some

degree of collaboration with industry that can be based on

the location of industries inside or close to the campus. An

example is the establishment of the IBM Research Centerinside the campus of the University of Haifa in Israel.

The campus will house a variety of functions, including

residence halls, sports facilities, cultural centers, and museums.

These will give a feeling of community to both the students

and university personnel and will offer the possibility of

cooperating with the neighboring community. The New

Campus can provide various services to the community,

including exhibitions, public lectures, and concerts.

The characteristics of the New Campuss physical

structure are described below and are represented

graphically in figure 6B.

Size. The size is smaller than the traditional campus

due to some increased use of computers, thereby

allowing the replacement of physical spaces with

virtual ones.

Spatial configuration. Most of the university functions

continue to take place within the campus, while a few

functions will be allocated outside its boundaries.




12/15

Boundaries and accessibility. While the New Campus

remains centralized, open boundaries will allow access

to industry and the community.

Functional organization. While the general spatial

configuration of the New Campus is similar to thetypology of the classical campus, the classical division

into faculties and departments will probably disappear

over time, and the separate disciplinary units will be

combined into interdisciplinary collaborative ones.

Large lecture halls will probably be replaced by

computer laboratories.

Location. A variety of locations could be appropriate

for this type of university, although locating it in

urban surroundings might be more beneficial to

the community.

The TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology in Haifa is

an example of a campus developing in this direction. Severalmultidisciplinary centers of excellence were established in

recent years and ties with industry were strengthened.

The faculty of medicine, its student dormitories, and the

Rappaport Family Institute for Research in the Medical

Sciences5 are located next to a big hospital in downtown

Haifa, far away from the main campus.

Evaluation.The New Campus supports the maintenance

of the social character of the university and its identity.

The space between the buildings plays an important role

in creating opportunities for social encounters and formal

activities, including interaction with the community. It also

allows great flexibility in the allocation of new functions

and growth. In addition, the open spaces can benefit those

who prefer a more open and relaxed learning environment.

Scenario 3: the University-City. In this scenario, a

large volume of activities takes place in the virtual space,

the organization is physically decentralized, and the

institutional boundaries are open (figure 5C).

The centrality of knowledge and its association with

components of the urban system, such as schools,

museums, industry, and leisure activities, blurs the limits

between this type of university and the city. The university

will be completely assimilated in the city and will become a

unique entity. From the institutional point of view, this

means a high degree of privatization, a medium degree of

computerization, and a high degree of collaboration with

industry and of openness to the community. A City of

Knowledge can reflect a dramatic increase in learning and

research. The university communities will cooperate with

other knowledge communities in the city. The university will

deal with many fields of knowledge and will act as a cultural

and technological center for the whole region. Most of its

functions will be knowledge-related, including high-technology

industries, knowledge-related commerce, conferences, and

museums, similar to the institution described by Tadmor:

The scientific technological research

university, therefore, in its unfolding

golden age, will not just be a large

university campus, where students

learn, engineers and managers train,

and research is carried out, but rather it

will become a major national-technology-

science-complex; or rather a science-

technology city with the universityat

its core, surrounded by a large array

of buffer institutions, industrial parks,

technological incubators, science relatedcultural activities, science oriented youth

camps, and international meeting places.

(2003, p. 22)

The characteristics of the University-Citys physical

structure are described below and are represented

graphically in figure 6C.

Size. The size is large, due to the dramatic increase in

learning and research activities.

Spatial configuration. Different parts of the university

will be located in different parts of the city.

Boundaries and accessibility. There are no boundaries.

The university and the city will be intermingled.

Functional organization. The organization will be

one of mixed uses.

Location. The University-City will be located within

the city limits.

Evaluation. The University-City opens new horizons for

future developments and ideas with greater flexibility. The

community of the university is the community of the city

and thus is not a discrete community, but a variety of

communities, each fulfilling, in some way, the classical

tasks of the university. The parallel existence of different and

diverse knowledge communities enables the collaborationand mutual fertilization needed for producing knowledge.

It is the ultimate embodiment of the emerging knowledge

society, emphasizing both the democratization of knowledge

and its central role. It can provide varying spatial situations

and balanced integration of green areas. Many parallel

diverse systems will exist simultaneously, fulfilling the

classical tasks of the traditional university.




13/15

Additional scenarioscombining basic scenarios.

The Mini-University, the New Campus, and the University-

City are three basic scenarios that can be combined to

create new complex spatial organizations. For example, a

combination of the New Campus and the Mini-University

may result in a new type of university in which some parts

will be similar to the Mini-University, and others similar to

the New Campus. In this case, the Mini-University model

will apply to only a few disciplines, such as medicine and

computer science, both of which have strong links with

external entities (like hospitals or industry). Hence, they

may need to be situated outside the campus. In both

cases, the platform of the campus remains important,

both from the administrative and the practical point of

view, by offering facilities such as laboratories that do not

exist outside the campus.

These scenarios are created by applying more thanone value to each uncertainty in the matrix that generates

the scenarios (figure 5D). Thus, for example, regarding

the volume of activities in the virtual space, the figure

illustrates that in the Mini-University, most of the activities

happen in the virtual space, while in the New Campus,

virtual spaces complement physical ones.

The combined scenario will thus be based on the

following values: a combination of a large volume of

activities with a medium volume of activities in the virtual

space, a compact organization with some degree of

decentralization, and open institutional boundaries. The

characteristics of the Combined Scenarios physicalstructure are represented graphically in figure 6D.

Evaluation. Because of the complex nature of this

organization, it provides various opportunities and offers the

advantages of two spatial organizations incorporating new

technologies and qualities in more than one way. It seems

that this possibility represents a more realistic scenario for

the future university, since it includes implementation of

gradual changes in a flexible manner, rather than an

extreme revolution.

Summary and Implications for the Future

We have analyzed the influence of social, cultural, economic,

and technological changes over time on the structure of the

university and have discussed the implications of these

changes for the design of the future university. The design

options were presented in three major scenarios that

identify the key elements of the future university and can

be used as guidelines for designers and policy makers.

However, when using these scenarios to conceptualize

the university of the future, planners should pay particular

attention to the following three key factors:

Using virtual space or physical space: tradeoffs. It

is most probable that future universities will bebi-spatial universities, with a combination of

activities in both the virtual and the physical spaces.

One of the key questions that designers of future

universities must address is which physical spaces

can and should be replaced by virtual spaces. It will be

necessary to determine which qualities will make the

physical spaces suitable for their new task as bridging

spaces to support social interactions. Designers will

have to design both physical and virtual spaces.

Relationship with industry. Other issues arising from

changes in the university institution relate to its

cooperation and interrelations with industry. Designers

will have to invent different strategies to provide

spatial connections with industry. Will the university, or

part of it, be located near industry? Will the industry

be located next to, or inside, the university? Will some

parts of the university become mobile and able to be

located in different places at different times, according

to specific needs?

Degree of integration with the community. Increased

openness to the community raises questions about

the boundaries of the university and the desirable

degree of integration with its surroundings. Some

claim that a certain degree of spatial identity should

be maintained together with the open boundaries.

Planners and designers will have to propose spatial

schemes/layouts that combine these two conflicting

qualities. Again, the notion of bridging spaces might beapplied: in this case, bridging between the university

and its immediate surroundings. These spaces may

include functions linked both to the university and to the

community, such as cultural centers, sport facilities,

shops, and museums.

The universities of the future will take as many different

forms as required to carry out their varied missions. Some



Designers of future universities must

determine which physical spaces can

and should be replaced by virtual spaces.


14/15

of the decisions that will be made about their physical form

will depend on future technological developments as yet

unknown to us. Thus, we are only at the beginning of this

discussion about the university of the future:

Massive and unstoppable changes are

under way, but we are not passive

subjects powerless to shape our fates.

If we understand what is happening, and

if we can conceive and explore alternative

futures, we can find opportunities tointervene, sometimes to resist, to

organize, to legislate, to plan, and

to design. (Mitchell 1995, p. 5)

References

Altbach, P. G. 1998. Forum Comparative Perspectives on Higher

Education for the Twenty-First Century. Higher Education

Policy 11 (4): 34756.

Banham, R. 1976. Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent

Past. London: Thames and Hudson.Bell, D. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in

Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

Carroll, J. M. 2000. Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of

Human-Computer Interactions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society.

Cambridge: Blackwell.

Cobban, A. B. 1992. Universities: 1100-1500. In The Encyclopedia

of Higher Education, eds. B. R. Clark and G. R. Neave,

124551. Oxford: Pergamon.

Delanty, G. 1998a. Rethinking the University: the Autonomy,

Contestation and Reflexivity of Knowledge. Social Epistemology:

a Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy12 (1): 10313.

. 1998b. The Idea of the University in the Global Era: FromKnowledge as an End to the End of Knowledge? Social

Epistemology: a Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy

12 (1): 325.

. 2001. Challenging Knowledge: The University in the

Knowledge Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Diaper, D. 2002. Scenarios and Task Analysis. Interacting with

Computers14 (4): 37995.

Hertzum, M. 2003. Making Use of Scenarios: A Field Study of

Conceptual Design. International Journal of Human-Computer

Studies58 (2): 21539.

Jarvis, P. 2000. The Changing University: Meeting a Need andNeeding to Change. Higher Education Quarterly54 (1): 4367.

Kerr, C. 1995. The Uses of the University. 4th ed. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Kumar, K. 1997. The Need for Place. In The Postmodern

University? Contested Visions of Higher Education in

Society, eds. A. Smith and F. Webster, 2735. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Lyotard, J-F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mitchell, W. J. 1995. City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Muthesius, S. 2000. The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus

and College. New Haven: Yale University Press.Readings, B. 1996. The University in Ruins. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Smith, A., and F. Webster, eds. 1997. The Postmodern University?

Contested Visions of Higher Education in Society. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Tadmor, Z. 2003. The Golden Age of the Scientific Technological

Research University. Report, The Samuel Neaman Institute for

Advanced Studies in Science and Technology, TechnionIsrael

Institute of Technology.

Toffler, A. 1981. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.

Turner, P. V. 1990. Campus: An American Planning Tradition.

Rev. ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Tzonis, A. 1999. Towards the University of the 21st Century.

Unpublished paper.

Wollenberg, E., D. Edmunds, and L. Buck. 2000. Using Scenarios

to Make Decisions About the Future: Anticipatory Learning for

the Adaptive Co-Management of Community Forests.

Landscape and Urban Planning47 (12): 6577.

Notes

1. Although universities have existed since the 12th century,

there is, to date, no comprehensive and comparative

overview of the historical development of university design,

except for the research published by Turner (1990), which

mainly surveys the architecture of universities in the United

States since the beginning of colonial settlement. (In the

introduction, Turner does include a brief description of the

English college as the precursor of the American college.)



The universities of the future will take

as many different forms as required

to carry out their varied missions.


15/15

2. This article focuses on spatial arrangement, rather than on

architectural features such as shape, materials, or style.

3. Although the term college was originally used to describe

a type of institution and the physical layout in which it was

housed, it is used today to describe any institution for higher

education, usually offering only a first degree, in contrastwith a university, which offers research and graduate

studies as well.

4. Scenarios present alternatives and stimulate creative ways

of thinking that can help decision makers evaluate possible

futures by analyzing uncertainties related to known processes.

Some attribute the development of scenario methodology

to the Manhattan Project, and it has been used in various

disciplines ever since (Carroll 2000; Diaper 2002; Hertzum

2003; Wollenberg, Edmunds, and Buck 2000). Because of

the high degree of uncertainty, we have opted for the

scenario methodology.

5. The 2004 Nobel Prize Laureates in Chemistry, Avram Hershko

and Aaron Ciechanover, came from this research center.

This article is based on research towards a masters degree by

Jacov Haina in the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning,

TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, Haifa, under the

supervision of Rifca Hashimshony, Faculty of Architecture

and Town Planning, Technion, and Alexander Tzonis, Facultyof Architecture, TU Delft, The Netherlands.

Acknowledgement:

This research was supported by Technion VPR Fund.



The Entitlement Generation, Generation Whywhatever

you call the latest generation of students, todays young

people expect a different educational environment.

Babcock, R. R. 2005. Schoolhouse Rocks.

Buildings99 (8): 58.

The critical question from the perspective of organizational

theorists is: to what degree have campuses really changed?

OMeara, K. 2005. Encouraging Multiple Forms of

Scholarship in Faculty Reward Systems: Does It Make a

Difference? Research in Higher Education 46 (5): 480.

Noteworthy Quotes

v34 n2 hashimshony haina

Documents