Request for Qualifications for a

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The University of Texas at Austin

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

Nowhere is long-range, strategic planning more important and effective than in the shaping of physical environments. Few physical environments benefit from comprehensive planning more than campus environments. Cost-effective, efficient, productive and s upportive campus building requires comprehensive planning.

The University of Texas acknowledged this fact as early as 1909 when President Mezes appointed the respected New York architect, Cass Gilbert, to produce a "general plan" for The University. That plan was followed with great care and attention through th e early 1930s, producing twelve outstanding buildings, all of which continue to serve The University well.

In 1933, The University of Texas once again sought an outstanding architect to produce a "comprehensive development plan" for the campus. Paul Cret of Philadelphia was selected and produced a master plan which guided campus building for twenty years. Ag ain, the buildings which resulted from this effort have served The University productively and have, along with buildings built under the Cass Gilbert plan, created a coherent core environment which has been crucial in shaping the character of The Univers ity of Texas as an institution.

Since the mid-1950s, The University of Texas at Austin, like many of its sister institutions, has conducted its physical planning in a less systematic, more reactive basis. While this has served its basic needs to accommodate increased growth in student s, faculty and staff, there is a general feeling that the result has been an unnecessarily fragmented campus, both functionally and aesthetically. There is a strong resolve to improve upon the campus character that has been developed over the last 30 years.

This master planning process is a first step toward recapturing the environmental and architectural quality which was established so beautifully at The University of Texas at Austin in the era of the Cass Gilbert and Paul Cret master plans. Recent succ esses of campus master planning efforts at sister institutions similar in terms of size and funding sources have inspired this initiative. The University is currently seeking a planning consultant of the highest calibre to assist in this challenging new effort.

II. BACKGROUND AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

The University of Texas at Austin is respected as a major research university; its academic programs and professional schools rank largely among the top 20 programs and schools in the country. Its faculty is distinguished nationally and internationally; its student body is, like the faculty, of high quality and of cultural and ethnical diversity. During the last century, The University has established its position as the premier institution for higher education in the State of Texas.

The University provides educational programs that prepare its graduates for leading roles in academia, the arts, business, the professions and public life. To these ends, The University offers over 270 degree programs in 14 individual schools and colle ges and a graduate school, 75 academic departments and programs and a Division of Continuing Education. The broad, multidisciplinary nature of The University is one of its great strengths, and its large size is, in many ways, a result of efforts to maint ain a critical mass of intellectual representation in a very wide range of disciplines.

As The University competes in recruiting students, it is recognized that the size of its faculty and the capacity of its physical plant limit the number of students it can accept. Through its newly developed admissions criteria, The University will maint ain future enrollment in the range of 46,000-48,000 students.

Since its opening in 1883, The University has grown from a 40-acre tract to a main campus of more than 350 acres. In addition, the Balcones Research Center, a 475-acre tract eight miles northwest of the campus, provides a major research and teaching site where some 20 research units, primarily in the areas of science and engineering, are located. Currently, The University consists of approximately 48,000 students, more than 2,200 faculty and a non-teaching staff of over 14,000.

In this context, a number of premises have been projected over the recent life of the campus which seem appropriate assumptions for the future:

  1. A basic planning concept for the campus clusters professional schools around the periphery of the campus, with the central core area preserved primarily for the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences and key administrative offices. This concept is intended to accommodate pedestrian traffic (student and faculty movement), especially during the short time period allowed for changing classes.

  2. The proximity and location needs of teaching, research, service and administrative units are critical issues in the successful operation of the University. Efforts are continually made in this changing environment to place offices and departments and other units at locations which are most suitable for overall campus needs. Many service units which have only limited contact with other departments on campus, other than by telephone, are good candidates for permanent quarters in less central locations.

  3. The bulk of the campus should continue to be a dominantly pedestrian environment with humanely scaled public spaces which bear a clear relationship to the campus as a whole.

  4. While separate buildings or building complexes may be expected for individual schools and colleges, these buildings should be strongly connected visually and geographically so that the campus reads and operates as a whole.

  5. Teaching, research, office and administrative spaces should continue to be integrated within the same building in general, although special-function buildings may occasionally need to be intermixed with multi-use academic facilities.

  6. The campus should maintain, and in some situations regain, a sense of pedestrian scale and horizontal building orientation.

  7. Parking should generally be located at the edges of the campus. Any significant increases in parking capacity should be obtained through construction of parking garages carefully designed to be as attractive and unobtrusive as possible.

  8. The Campus Master Plan should promote increased campus accessibility via mass transit and bicycles.

  9. The Campus Master Plan should honor and extend the previous master planning work done in the 1910 plan and in the Paul Cret plan.

  10. The Campus Master Plan should evaluate and develop strategies to bridge the dramatic changes in campus popluation between 1933 and the present as well as the projected future.

III. CURRENT INITIATIVES/IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

In September 1993, President Robert M. Berdahl appointed a Campus Master Planning Committee chaired by Austin Gleeson, Chair of the Faculty Building Advisory Committee. Its fourteen members include faculty, staff, administration and student representa tives as well as personnel from the UT System Office of Facilities, Planning and Construction. The committee was charged with formulating a framework for the commissioning of a campus master plan and with acting as client representative during the maste r planning process.

During the fall of 1993, the committee reviewed master planning processes at a number of peer institutions, reviewed current institutional activities concerning land use and construction on the UT campus, discussed various potential master planning strate gies, and identified the primary issues which the campus master plan should address. Concurrent with these activities, the Faculty Building Advisory Committee has been interviewing representatives from the various schools and colleges on campus to ascert ain future space needs and to determine priorities for future building projects.

The Campus Master Planning Committee has, from its discussions, ascertained ten issues which should guide the new Campus Master Plan:

1. Academic Community
It should be a primary goal of the campus master plan to promote interaction and community. The University of Texas at Austin campus is very large and often presents faculty, students and staff with an environment that is daunting, even threatening. Stu dents live both on and off campus. Faculty and staff increasingly live in all parts of the city. These circumstances lead to a situation in which our faculty, students and staff lack a sense of community. We need more good, usable open spaces for infor mal interaction.

The open spaces in the core of the campus -- especially around the West Mall, the Main Plaza and the South Mall -- work beautifully to promote such community, but elsewhere on campus large monolithic buildings surrounded by ill-defined and seldom-used ope n spaces predominate. The Campus Master Plan should identify and define a system of lively, interactive public spaces for the campus which can provide an environment for community exchange. The current campus malls could provide a beginning for such a system of open spaces. The Waller Creek corridor might provide an alternative, more informal system of spaces. Whatever the proposed solution, the redesign of existing open spaces and the design of dynamic new open spaces to create a greater sense of ac ademic community on the campus is a fundamental challenge of this master planning effort.

2. Extension of the Core Campus
The central campus represents a very distinguished architectural ensemble which should serve as the centerpiece of the new campus master plan. The plan should take full advantage of opportunities for renovation and placement of new infill buildings withi n the core where there is great demand for incremental growth. (The Goldsmith Hall extension offers a good example of such sensitive infill recently.) Newer areas of campus need to be integrated with the core campus more effectively than they are curre ntly. Existing buildings in the core must be used optimally and must be able to be renovated and extended to meet changing needs. The campus master plan should identify opportunities for growth in the core campus (either underground or as infill) where departmental expansion can occur without massive relocations.

3. Campus Organization
As noted in the section on planning assumptions above, The University has, in general, clustered professional schools around the periphery of the campus with Liberal Arts, Natural Sciences and key administrative offices at the central core. Individual sc hools and colleges have been housed in somewhat separate buildings or complexes , often with an identity of their own (e.g. Fine Arts Complex, Law School, LBJ School, College of Communications, Engineering, Education, Nursing, etc.) The individuality and isolation of particular schools and colleges has been far more evident in recent buildings than in the past.

Though the general planning assumptions outlined above should continue, this campus master planning effort should investigate alternatives in terms of consistency and degree. The construction of The University Teaching Center several years ago offered th e alternative possibility of a single-purpose classroom building which can serve multiple disciplines. A similar technically advanced teaching center has been proposed for the north campus area. Should there be a greater concentration of classrooms (sha red by various schools and colleges) in the center of campus? How can the isolation of some schools/colleges, both geographically and in terms of image, be ameliorated? How might these possibilities help provide for flexibility and incremental growth in the future?

4. Campus Circulation
The campus currently has a complex web of circulation systems generated by pedestrian traffic, bicycles, automobiles, and service vehicles which has developed in a somewhat ad hoc manner through the years. A thorough assessment of these systems needs to be conducted in order to better organize campus circulation and to reduce conflicts. This would both increase the clarity and efficiency of campus movement and reduce safety risks. Parking must also be dealt with in a cost-effective and visually pleasin g manner which preserves the pedestrian character of the campus.

5. Campus Expansion
The University has recently acquired or consolidated several tracts of land which will be used for campus expansion -- in particular, the district to the north of campus bounded by 26th Street, 27th Street, Guadalupe and Speedway and the district to the e ast of campus including the parcel between Red River and I-35 south of 26th Street and all The University's holdings east of I-35. A clear, well-documented physical plan is needed for these areas which will incorporate existing structures with significan t parcels available for new construction. All of this planning for expansion should take into account the availability of parcels for university expansion at Balcones and elsewhere though the planning of outlying parcels is not within the scope of this p roject. Assessment should also be made as to whether The University should acquire any new properties adjacent to the campus in order to optimize its current investments.

6. Relation to Adjacent Environments
It is important that this campus master plan acknowledge that the campus does not exist as an island in the city, but that it depends heavily on residential, commercial and institutional environments around it. The campus must have strong functional conn ections to its surroundings while maintaining some special identity. City of Austin planning efforts -- especially the prospect of a light rail system west of campus and the near completion of the Waller Creek Hike and Bike Trail System -- should be stro ng generators of campus planning directions.

7. Campus Infrastructure
Projections regarding servicing and utilities requirements of the campus must be a significant consideration in generating the campus master plan. Current investments in utilities infrastructure must be taken into account in projecting the manner in whi ch these facilities should be configured in the future to best meet the long-term needs of the campus.

8. Visual Character of the Campus
The contiguous campus area should appear as a unified entity with well defined gateways. Architects working at UT Austin should be given design guidelines which indicate the institution's priorities in terms of the visual character of the campus. Part o f the master planning process should include the definition and delineation of these design guidelines including notation of building scale, general material character, color, etc., as well as description of landscape character and design of small-scale i nterventions such as benches, light standards, trash receptacles, service areas, bike racks, kiosks, etc. The design guidelines should describe the goal of a rich campus aesthetic which provides for both unity and accommodation. These guidelines need to develop a strategy to accommodate the changes in the institution's mission and the tremendous growth in the student, faculty and staff populations from those of the Gilbert and Cret plans to that of today.

9. Historical Importance of the Campus
A Historic Preservation Plan for the campus should be prepared as part of the campus master plan which would determine which buildings on campus merit assiduous and thorough preservation and which buildings are candidates for respectful adaptive re-use. This will be an extremely valuable document in making decisions about building maintenance and improvements in the future. It will also assure the State and the public that The University takes seriously its responsibility as steward of an important arti fact in the history of Texas.

10. Campus Orientation and Wayfinding
The campus is currently very difficult for both visitor and regular users to find their way within. Building names, signs, maps and other orientation devices should be improved to reduce frustration with wayfinding on campus. Information nodes may need to be identified at strategic locations on campus reducing the intrusiveness of signs, posters, announcements and information services on the campus as a whole.

IV. ANTICIPATED SERVICES

The Campus Master Planning Committee has projected the following sequence of work for this master planning process:

  1. Begin long-range comprehensive planning process including all parts of the campus and all facets of planning. In so doing, identify various districts of the campus for specific study -- e.g., North Campus (area north of 26th Street), East Campus (are a east of I-35), East Central Campus (area between Speedway and I-35), Central Campus (area south of 26th Street, west of Speedway).

  2. In short time frame produce an Interim Comprehensive Plan.

  3. Begin detailed North Campus Study.

  4. Begin detailed East Campus Study.

  5. Begin detailed Central Campus Study.

  6. Begin detailed East Central Campus Study.

  7. Complete all district studies to produce Comprehensive Plan for adoption.

As a part of this sequence it is anticipated that, at a minimum, ten different kinds of plans would emerge:

  1. Overall Campus Framework Plan integrating all issues discussed above and giving design direction to the future development of the campus. Major design ideas and directives are expected to be evident in the campus framework plan.

  2. Open Space Plan addressing need for greater sense of academic community as well as accommodating pedestrian movement.

  3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan incorporating need for humane safe, efficient and easily understood movement and interaction systems.

  4. Vehicular Circulation and Parking Plan providing convenient access to campus with a minimum of disruption.

  5. Utilities Infrastructure Plan locating corridors for services closely coordinated with open space and building opportunity plan.

  6. Building Opportunity Plan identifying where growth and expansion can occur both at a large scale and at a small scale -- construction sites for new building projects and for expansion of existing buildings.

  7. Projected Building Massing Plan including recommendations for new building footprints and general three-dimensional configuration.

  8. Historic Preservation Plan recommending priorities for conservation of the campus' significant architectural heritage.

  9. Design Guidelines outlining criteria for the visual character of the campus.

  10. Wayfinding Plan recommending graphics, signage, and information systems for the campus.

Fee determination and phasing will likely be broken down according to the above-outlined seven steps of sequence and ten different types of plans.

V. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

  1. Statement of interest pertaining to this specific project.

  2. A brief history of the firm(s) including proposed consultants.

  3. Biographical data on principals and key professional members of the firm(s) who will be directly involved in this project, including proposed sub-consultants. Indicate what per cent of time key individuals will be involved.

  4. A completed "Proposal Form for Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB) Participation," sample attached.

  5. A complete Standard Form 254 for firm(s) and major proposed sub-consultants. All consultants which qualify as "historically underutilized Ôbusiness" should be identified, together with the approximate percentage that each will earn of the Project Plan ner's total fee.

  6. Statement of availability of firm(s) and sub-consultants to undertake this project with specific reference to personnel noted above.

  7. Relevant project experience information to include:
    1. Institution name
    2. Location
    3. Project description with specifics related to this project
    4. Nature of professional service delivered by your firm(s) on each of these relevant projects
    5. Nature of your firm's or firms' contract on each of these relevant projects, (i.e., joint venture, prime professional, consultant, etc.)
    6. Fee received (if not confidential)

  8. Indication of how you propose to deliver the professional services required for this project:
    1. Statement of your approach to the planning process.
    2. Organization (i.e., prime professional with consultants, joint venture, etc.) Assignment of professional personnel in all disciplines.
    3. Time frame for completion of the planning assignment as you currently understand it. Flow chart of tasks and time schedule.

  9. List of client references for relevant projects with contact name(s) and telephone number(s).

  10. Statement of your recommended process for involving UT participation. Include recommended process of dissemination of information about the planning process to enhance a positive environment conducive to achievement of the planning goals.

  11. Statement of projected deliverables: reports, models, traditional graphics, computer generated graphics, etc.

VI. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Critical factors which will be considered in evaluation of statements of qualifications will be as follows.

  1. Experience in Creating High Quality Campus Master Plans -- Submittals will be evaluated according to proposers' demonstrated experience in successful planning and design of complex campus or other comparable, large institutional environments. Particul ar credit will be given to experience with existing environments similar to The University of Texas at Austin, (i.e. environments with high quality historical buildings, highly pedestrianized environments, in-town urban environments, etc.)

  2. Demonstrated Design Creativity and Excellence -- Proposals should illustrate strong capability to respond to particular issues of any given design situation. Proven capability to assess extant situations quickly, communicate effectively, and project p owerful and innovative design solutions will be important qualifications for this consultant. Demonstration of design recognition and capabilities for creative innovation should be evident in submittals.

  3. Technical Expertise -- Submittals should document availability of consultants with very specialized technical expertise in traffic, parking, utilities infrastructure design, landscape design, signage and graphic design, etc.
  4. Creativity and Qualifications of Key Individuals -- Proposals will be evaluated carefully in terms of exactly what personnel will be committed to this project and what their qualifications are for producing a successful campus master plan.

  5. Organization and Project Approach -- Submittals will be carefully evaluated in terms of how they propose to accomplish this master planning project. Team composition, experience in working together, integration and clarity of various team members' rol es, and proposed interface with University personnel will all be key factors in this evaluation. Presence of team members in Austin for information gathering and exchange during the period of the project will also be an important factor in this evaluatio n.

  6. Inclusion of Historically Underutilized Businesses -- Demonstration of good faith effort to achieve 30% participation of HUB.

After evaluation of RFQ submissions, a short list of 3-5 teams will be invited for interviews on campus. Questions about the RFQ will be welcomed in writing through February 14, 1994. Written response to those questions will follow. A pre-response meet ing will be held February 21, 1994 at which time additional questions will be answered orally. All individual communications about the project are requested to be in writing.

Address: 

Office of Facilities Planning and Construction 
The University of Texas System 
702 Colorado Street 
Suite 400 
Austin, Texas  78701  
FAX:  512-499-4604  

VII.  SCHEDULE
  

February 3, 1994      Mail RFQ  
February 14, 1994     Questions due in writing  
February 21, 1994      Pre-response meeting 2:00 p.m.  
March 7, 1994        RFQ responses due  
April 4-8, 1994        Interviews of short-listed teams  
April 15, 1994         Evaluation by Campus Master Planning Committee  
May 3, 1994       Board of Regents Agenda Deadline  Ô 
June 9, 1994        Board of Regents Meeting  
June 15, 1994        Project begins