Thank you to the many stakeholders who participated in yesterday’s master plan visioning workshop. Over 30 staff, students, faculty, administrators, neighbours and municipal representatives got together to discuss the future of the campus. The workshop kicked off with a presentation (7.6 MB PDF) by our consultant team that identified issues and opportunities facing the campus. Participants were then divided into smaller groups to define priorities and objectives for the future of the campus by working through the following questions:
- What are the most pressing issues and trends and how should the campus evolve in response?
- How far are you willing to go to achieve sustainability?
- Is a new vision needed for the future of the campus?
- What are the right relationships between UoG, downtown and the City of Guelph?
- What are the top five projects for the evolution of campus in the next 20 years?
The next step in the process will be to refine the great ideas, directions and feedback that we received through the workshop into a draft campus vision. We will then bring the draft campus vision forward at the campus open house on March 22 (more details to follow). In the meantime, take a look at the presentation and let us know your answers to the above questions.
Just quick thought.
It would be worth while investigating and considering green roof infrastructure in the planning of new campus buildings and in retrofitting some existing ones.
Wilfrid, Ric,
A belated thanks for your comments and insight. For some reason these comments didn’t show up when I viewed the page. I’m still getting used to WordPress…
Wilfred, you raise a lot of important points, including the need for an effective implementation strategy and the value that the 2002 CMP can still provide for this current planning process. This plan is an update to the 2002 plan, and we aim to incorporate and expand on the good ideas and directions from 2002. However, we will also focus on those areas where the 2002 plan may not address today’s needs, including the development of a realistic and feasible implementation strategy. I hope you can join us for the open house on March 22 where we can talk about this in more detail.
Ric, your point about forgoing principles for opportunities is an issue that all campuses face, especially in an economic downturn. We hope that the new plan will provide a robust development framework and principles along with an effective but flexible implementation strategy that can accommodate opportunities as they arise.
Ben
Is the meeting on the 22nd an open meeting or participant specific.
ric
I wasn’t at the workshop Wilf, so I can’t speak directly to the discussion however I believe you have posted an important point(s). All too often we forgo some of our well thought out principles for what is perceived as an opportunity. Long term this hasn’t always paid off. Some basic strategies have been let go for one reason or other and then it is difficult to make the connections down the road in future planning.
Thanks for a great visioning workshop. Just wondering how the current vision that is embedded in the 2002 Campus Master Plan (CMP) fits with our discussion. In my opinion, the 2002 CMP is a brilliant document because it embodies the 1995 Strategic Plan, the 1993 Place of Value document and the need for growth through 46 principles that represent a consensus within the U of G community. It is a living document that enables adaptation, innovation and new forms to emerge as priorities and needs change. It does have its problems though, like how do we practically translate the demonstration plan into feasible proposals for real projects that need to come on line. The 2002 CMP includes an implementation section, design checklists,etc, but there seems to be gap between the principles, as a primary concern, and the functional programs and designs of architects taking on these projects as a secondary activity. To me, the visioning workshop was a discussion about the latter while almost ignoring the former. Perhaps the current 2002 CMP could serve very well (with some tweaking) as a kind of preamble document that does not get changed that much, while the present updating process could be focused on the “drivers” identified at the workshop–culminating in a kind of secondary plan with preliminary proposals for possible projects in the short to mid-term. The ultimate outcome for this process could be individual development briefs for expansion and maintenance of our most important places and buildings that we can use as on-going reference tools as we implement projects (large and small) around the campus. This is a third layer of emergent activity that can be generated by this dynamic process resulting in a campus that is coherent and practical. Thanks again for facilitating our discussion and best of luck for the remainder of your work with us.
Wilfred Ferwerda