Master Plan 2021 - Home | University of Missouri

Master Plan 2021Campus Assessment Summary | March 2021

Ayers Saint GrossFOCUS EXPERIENCE

INTERDISCIPLINARY

• Architecture• Planning• Interiors• Landscape Architecture• Graphic Design• Space Analytics

250+Master Plan Projects

80%of our work is for Higher Education; 20% for campus edge environments

170Employees in 7 States

• Duke University

• Harvard University and Medical School

• University of Illinois at Chicago

• Johns Hopkins University and Medical Campus

• Kansas City Art Institute

• Medical University of South Carolina

• Ohio State University

• University of Maryland, Baltimore

• University of Missouri – St Louis

• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

• University of Pittsburgh

• University of Southern California

• Virginia Commonwealth University

• Washington University in St. Louis

TeamHOUSING AND DINING

PLANNING

LOCAL ARCHITECT + RESOURCE

Brailsford & Dunlavey

Eastley + Partners, LLC

ODIMO

Master Plan Purpose: Align the Physical Campus with the Mission and Vision of UMKC

Master Plan Charge:Establish planning principles and a framework that will guide future renewal, development, and enhancement of the campus environment.

• Market demand

• Unit type

• Financial feasibility

• P3 options

• Dining and Student Life components

• Buildingsrenovations, repurposing, additions, new construction, demolition, divestment

• Open Space

• Transportation

• Connectivity

• Campus edge

• Prioritization and implementation

• Existing space

• Utilization

• Alignment of needs with projections

UMKC Master Plan 2021 Components

Campus Framework Space Assessment Housing and Dining

NOV - DECWorkshop 1

JANWorkshop 2

FEBWorkshop 3

MARWorkshop 4

APRWorkshop 5

MAYWorkshop 6

JUN-JULFinal Deliverable

Purpose:• Campus Tours• Existing Conditions

Assessment

Purpose:• Assessment Findings• Planning Goals

and Principles

Purpose:• Concept Plans• Space Needs Findings• Design Scenarios

Purpose:• Refined Design

Scenarios• Initial Prioritization and

Financial Feasibility

Purpose:• Draft Plan• Prioritization and


Purpose:• Final Plan Review

Purpose:• Board of Curators

Meeting, June 24 + 25• Final Report

documentation

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder Meetings

and Listening Sessions• Housing Survey

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs

Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force • Thematic Groups• Campus-wide Survey


Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force


Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force• Stakeholder groups and

campus community

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder groups and

campus community

Engagement:• Master Plan

Roll-out to Stakeholder groups campus community

Reco m m en d a t i o n s

Schedule and Process

C o n cep t D e vel o p m en tC a m p u s A ssessm en t

Meetings and Listening Sessions to Date

Deans Council ▫ School of Law ▫ Honors College ▫ College of Medicine ▫ School of Nursing and Health Studies ▫ School of

Computing and Engineering ▫ School of Biological and Chemical Sciences ▫ Conservatory ▫ Research + School of Graduate

Studies ▫ School of Pharmacy ▫ School of Dentistry ▫ Libraries ▫ Bloch School of Management ▫ School of Education Dean ▫

College of Arts & Sciences ▫ Joint Meeting with Health Sciences Deans ▫ UMKC Executive Council ▫ ERCE + UMKC Foundation

▫ Human Resources ▫ Finance and Administration ▫ Athletics ▫ UMKC Innovation Center ▫ Chief Information Officer ▫

Strategic Marketing and Communications ▫ Diversity and Inclusion

Academic Units + Administrative Units

Provost & Academic Strategy Team ▫ Residential Life and Dining ▫ Swinney Recreation Center ▫ Student Affairs Directors

Meeting ▫ Student Success + Enrollment Management ▫ Faculty Development

Student Affairs + Student Success + Faculty Affairs + Curriculum

Neighborhood Advisory Council ▫ UMKC Trustees ▫ Transportation

External Stakeholders

Neighborhood Groups ▫ Trustee Student Housing Task Force ▫ Innovation ▫ KC Delegation State Legislators ▫ City

Planning ▫ RUNC ▫ KC Workforce ▫ Neighboring Institutions - Rockhurst, Stowers, MRI Global, Russell Stovers, Brookside 51,

Central Methodist, T/M Board, Catholic Diocese ▫ UMKC Health Sciences District Partners ▫ Diversity Councils ▫ General

Constituent Session ▫ Diastole Chairs + Staff Liaisons ▫ Alumni Governing Board ▫ Foundation Board

Upcoming

Campus-wide Survey Participation, by type:

59

54

2162

98

37

98

23

44

78

171

207

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate /Professional

Faculty Staff /Administrator

87 / 6% 81 / 6%

156 / 11%124 / 8%

242 / 17%

289 / 20%

471 / 32%

How long have you been at UMKC?

- 10+ Years

- 6 – 10 Years

- 3 – 5 Years

- 1 – 2 Years

- < 1 Year

1,450 total respondents

Students Housing Survey Participation

1,038Total Respondents

9%

13%

13%

11%

16%

15%

20%

14%

42%

45%

Campus Population

Survey Respondents

F-T Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate

DEMOGRAPHICS

39%

25%

17%

13%

4%2% 1%

38%

25%

18%

13%

4% 1% 0.4%

21 or under 22 - 24 years 25 - 29 years 30 - 39 years 40 - 49 years 50 - 59 years 60 or over

Age

Survey Respondents Campus Population

37% over 24 years old

› Survey response was generally representative of the campus population

Campus Assessment OverviewInputs Assessment Planning Principles

• UMKC Mission and Vision

• UMKC Strategic Plan Pillars

• UMKC Forward

• Stakeholder Listening Sessions

• Campus Survey

• Physical Observations

• Previous Studies

• Data

• Experience with Similar InstitutionsSt

reng

ths

Chal

leng

es

Opp

ortu

nitie

s Interconnected, mission-driven goals

that help guide the physical

master planning process

Great

Not So Great

Indoor Environment

OutdoorEnvironment

Topography

Have outreach programs, but need more space

Availability and location of Student Housing

Wayfinding

Connectivity between buildings needs improvement

Availability and variety of dining options

Availability of large classrooms

Facilities do not reflect stature of programs

Lack of collaboration space

The abundance of open / green spaces in an urban setting

Seems like a commuter campus

New buildings reflect support modern research and instruction

Connectivity to Kansas City

Lack of development along Troost

Connection to community Opportunities to leverage partnerships

Lack of campus “heart”

Mix of old and new architectural styles

What We Are Hearing

UMKC identity is missing

Streetcar extension

Inconsistent space quality between buildings

UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus

Student Learning, Success, and Experience

Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding

Impactful Community Engagement

Emergent Themes

1

2

3

4





Emergent Themes

1

2

3

4

UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus; Impactful Community EngagementStrengths

Public, Urban, Research Institution

Kansas City’s University

Diverse Campus Community

60+ community affiliate groupsMedical and health services to metro area

Volker Campus

Challenge:

First Impressions and Pedestrian Experience

Campus Building

Campus Parcel

Campus Arrival Point

Institutional Presence

Defined Campus / Town Edge

Ill-defined Campus Zone

Major Campus Street Edge

Major Pedestrian Entrance

Mixed Use Corridor

Admissions

Parking

Problematic Street Crossing

Key

PP

P

P

Volker and Rockhill

Volker and Brookside

Russell Stover

MRI GlobalStowers Institute

Challenge:

First Impressions & Pedestrian Experience

UMKC Olson Performing Arts Center

Volker

Confusing intersection for first time visitors

You only get one chance to make a first impression

51st and TroostChallenge:


“Greeted’ by ParkingMinimal Signage

Back of Facilities Building

Volker

Ill-defined campus zone

Landscape serves as a green barrier

Stone barrier

Looking north to Atterbury Center

Health Sciences Campus

Challenge:

First Impressions and Pedestrian Experience

Campus Building

Campus Parcel

Campus Arrival Point

Institutional Presence

Defined Campus / Town Edge

Ill-defined Campus Zone

Major Campus Street Edge

Major Pedestrian Entrance

Mixed Use Corridor

Parking

Problematic Street Crossing

Key

P

P

P P

P

Gilham and E 25th

Troost and E 25thChallenge:


Hard to tell new housing is UMKC

Small (off brand) signage

Buildings in the background

Vacant land

High speed crossing

Health Sciences

School of Dentistry blank facade

Challenge:


Health Sciences

Holmes Street – looking north

No streetscape elements

Unsafe pedestrian crossing

Charlotte Street – looking north

Wide street

Likely development site faces HSB loading dock

Lacking vegetationNo relief from the street

Theme 1: UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse CampusOpportunities

Establish gateways and improve signage

Create consistent identity

Showcase signature spaces

Establish a heart for both campuses

Leverage the streetcar

Theme 4: Impactful Community Engagement Opportunities

Places for the campus and Kansas City community to come together





Emergent Themes

1

2

3

4

Theme 2: Student Learning, Success, and Experience Strengths

Comprehensive Curriculum

Access to city life and culture

Access to Faculty

Recent Investments

Volker Campus

Challenge: Distribution of Instructional + Student Space

Volker Campus

I N S TRUCTIONA L

S TUDENT S PA C E

• Good distribution of instructional space

• Large concentration on the west side of campus where there are less amenities and east-west connectivity challenges

• Limited study and collaboration space outside of the library and dining areas

• Dining hall is not proximate to residence halls

S C A L E R E F :

2 0 K N A S F

Oak St Residence Hall

Johnson Residence Hall


Challenge: Distribution of Instructional + Student Space

I N S TRUCTIONA L

S TUDENT S PA C E

• Location of instructional space in each building reinforces siloed approach

• Limited study and collaboration space outside of the library

• Limited food and dining options on campus

S C A L E R E F :

2 0 K N A S F

Theme 2: Student Learning, Success, and Experience Challenges // Limited Collaboration, Study, and Amenity Space

Rate the quality / availability of the non-classroom spaces:

Almost always find a preferred space

Usually find space, maybe not ideal

Difficult to find space

NA / CJ

Individual study or work spaces

Group study or collaboration spaces

Indoor social spaces

Outdoorsocial spaces

Students

14%

28%

19%

39%

14%

28%

19%

39%

26%

55%

13%6%

7%

29%

25%

39%

7%

29%

25%

39%

17%

42%23%

18%

9%

27%

30%

34%

9%

27%

30%

34%

27%

46%

20%

7%

18%

33%23%

26%

21%

37%16%

26%

38%

33%

15%

14%

Faculty

Staff / Administrator

Rate the quality of the campus resource spaces:

Excellent

Good

Average

Below Average

Academic Support(Maker Space, Writing Labs, Tutoring)

Recreation Spaces(Rec Center, Rec Fields. Etc.)

Student Health / Wellness(Health Center, Counseling)

Students

4%

35%

44%

17%

6%

31%

39%

24%

22%

47%

25%

6%

7%

32%

37%

24%

5%

35%

37%

23%

16%

48%

29%

7%

8%

38%35%

19%

9%

23%

40%

28%

23%

47%

24%

6%

Faculty


45%

46%

33%

25%

17%

21%

17%

5%

48%

47%

51%

58%

57%

52%

49%

32%

6%

7%

9%

11%

21%

22%

25%

39%

1%

1%

7%

6%

5%

5%

10%

23%

Location of housing

Safety and Security within theresidential building

Proximity and availability ofparking

Building cleanliness andmaintenance

Lounge and social spaces withinthe building

Study spaces within the building

Proximity to campus dining

Cost of housing

Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory

20% 67% 11% 2%Overall Condition• Despite low capture rates, on-campus students are generally satisfied with their housing offerings

• Overall condition (87%)⎼ Johnson Hall – 86%⎼ Oak St Hall – 89%⎼ Hospital Hill – 83%

• Students are least satisfied with cost of housing and proximity to campus dining

On-Campus Housing SatisfactionFALL 2020 SURVEY RESULTS FOR ON CAMPUS STUDENTS

What is lacking in the existing dining spaces or offerings?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

VendingServices

Grab and Go Café /Coffee Shops

FastCasual

All You Can Eat Restaurant RotatingVendors

Kitchenettes Other

Students

Faculty


Responses

Excellent

Good

Average

Below Average

NA / CJ

2%17%

28%

23%

30%

AllRespondents

How would you rate the on-campus dining experience?On-Campus

Dining

Theme 2: Student Learning, Success, and Experience Opportunities: Wellness Hub

Opportunities:

Where on the Volker Campus could be a good location for additional dining facilities?

Opportunities:

Where on the Health Sciences Campus could be a good location for additional dining facilities?

Holm

es





Emergent Themes

1

2

3

4

Existing programmatic synergies

Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding Strengths

Mix of historic and new buildings

Proximity to institutional partners

Site capacity for new facilities and additions

93,851, 3%

1,248,212, 42%914,385,

31%

702,780, 23%

31,944, 1%

93,851, 4%

752,752, 34%

903,770, 41%

440,165, 20%

31,944, 1%

495,460, 65%

10,615, 1%

262,615, 34%

Challenge: Facility Condition

.1-.2 .3-.4 .5-.6 .7-.8 .9+<.1

Facility Condition Needs Index (FCNI) Key

Volker2,225,458 SF

UMKCTotal

2,994,148 SF

Health Sciences768,690 SF

The Facility Condition Needs Index (FCNI) is a measure of the recommended repair costs divided by the estimated building replacement cost. Buildings with an FCNI greater than .50 should be considered for replacement.

25% of UMKC facilities have an FCNI greater than .50

Classrooms(Lecture Halls, Seminar Rooms, Etc.)

6%

33%

46%

15%

7%

32%

37%

24%

20%

45%

27%

8%

Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and FundingChallenge: Inconsistent Quality of Space -Instruction

Fixed Seating

Singular Focus

Access to Technology

Collaborative EnvironmentCollaborative Environment

Outdated furniture

Excellent

Good

Average

Below Average

Students

Faculty


Fixed Seating

Teaching Labs(Science/Computer Labs. Studios, Etc.)

11%

36%36%

17%

10%

30%

27%

33%

25%

43%

25%

7%

Students

Faculty


Research Labs

12%

37%32%

19%

9%

29%

30%

32%

25%

45%

26%

4%

Excellent

Good

Average

Below Average

Students

Faculty


Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and FundingChallenge: Inconsistent Quality of Space - Research

Volker Campus

Which building / indoor space is your favorite?

Which building / indoor space needs the most investment?

Which outdoor space needs the most investment?


Which building / indoor space is your favorite?

Which building / indoor space needs the most investment?

Which outdoor space needs the most investment?

Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding Opportunities: Renovation and Renewal of Existing Facilities

Incremental investments to improve the quality of space and technology

Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding Opportunities: Potential Redevelopment Areas

Volker Health Sciences

Volker

Next Steps

Planning Principles

Student Success

Resiliency and Stewardship

Identity and Connectivity

Physical Environment

Impactful Engagement

Promote professional and social mobility for all learners

Ensure stewardship of UMKC’s mission, facilities and campus community

Celebrate the UMKC’s unique identity and role as an anchor institution in Kansas City

Elevate the quality and condition of buildings, landscape and streetscape

Advance engagement for the benefit of the community and the university

Five planning principles have emerged from a large cross-section of stakeholder

engagement sessions to create a vision for UMKC’s campus that will support its

students, faculty, staff, alumni and the larger Kansas City community.

Draft

Design Scenario Drivers

• Creating gateways

• Rethinking the streets

• Reinvesting in existing assets

• Activating open spaces

• Reinforcing interdisciplinary and interprofessional interactions and collaboration

NOV - DECWorkshop 1

JANWorkshop 2

FEBWorkshop 3

MARWorkshop 4

APRWorkshop 5

MAYWorkshop 6

JUN-JULFinal Deliverable

Purpose:• Campus Tours• Existing Conditions

Assessment

Purpose:• Assessment Findings• Planning Goals

and Principles

Purpose:• Concept Plans• Space Needs Findings• Design Scenarios

Purpose:• Refined Design

Scenarios• Initial Prioritization and


Purpose:• Draft Plan• Prioritization and


Purpose:• Final Plan Review

Purpose:• Board of Curators

Meeting, June 24 + 25• Final Report

documentation

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder Meetings

and Listening Sessions• Housing Survey


Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force • Thematic Groups• Campus-wide Survey


Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force


Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force• Stakeholder groups and

campus community

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group

Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder groups and

campus community

Engagement:• Master Plan

Roll-out to Stakeholder groups campus community

Reco m m en d a t i o n s

Next Steps

C o n cep t D e vel o p m en tC a m p u s A ssessm en t

Master Plan 2021FOR MORE INFORMATION:https://www.umkc.edu/chancellor/initiatives/master-plan.html

Documents

Master Plan 2021 - Home | University of Missouri