mas

terp

lanVALERIO DEWALT TRAIN ASSOCIATES

SEARL AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS

GOODy CLANCy AND ASSOCIATES

MASTER PLAN TEAM

COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGOAlicia Berg, Vice President of Campus EnvironmentAnne Foley, Associate Provost for Administration

ARCHITECTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENTValerio Dewalt Train AssociatesJoe ValerioRandy MattheisBill KissingerBrad PaushaTom DalyJoanne GraneyAndrew KerrAna Stojanovic

Searl and AssociatesLinda Searl

PLANNINGGoody Clancy & AssociatesDavid DixonDennis Swinford

MARKET RESEARCHReal Estate Planning GroupLarry Lund

BENCHMARKING AND PROJECT GOALSPersis Rickes Associates, Inc.Persis Rickes

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATINGTurner Construction Company

WRITERSChristine ManganBrian O’Connor

APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEESDecember 2005

ISSUEDMarch 2006

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO

Senior AdministrationWarrick L. Carter, Ph.D., PresidentAlicia Berg, Vice President of Campus EnvironmentMichael DeSalle, Vice President of Finance and CFOSteven Kapelke, Provost and Vice President for Academic AffairsAnnice Kelly, Vice President and General CounselMark Kelly, Vice President of Student AffairsEric Winston, Vice President for Institutional Advancement

Board of TrusteesAllen M. Turner, ChairmanAndrew AlexanderEllen Stone BelicGary R. BelzLerone Bennett Jr.Dr. Warrick L. Carter, Ph.D.William Cellini Jr.Warren K. Chapman, Ph.D.Debra Martin ChaseBarry S. CrownSteve DahlSteve DevickAllan R. Drebin, Ph.D.Richard B. FizdaleJohn GehronSydney Smith GordonMary Louise HaddadAlton B. HarrisBill HoodGary Stephen HopmayerDon JacksonTom KallenBill KurtisMarcia LazarGloria LehrAverill LevitonBarry MayoRenetta McCannHoward MendelsohnJoe PeyronninSamuel E. PfefferStephen H. PughMadeline Murphy RabbJohn P. RijosCraig RobinsonShelley RosenJanice ScharreRobert ShayeVictor SkrebneskiLawrence K. SniderDavid S. Solomon, M.D.Patrick A. SweeneyNancy TomDempsey J. TravisPamela TurbevilleTony G. WeismanHelena Chapellin WilsonRobert A. Wislow

Columbia Advisory Committeeplease see inside back cover for a list of committee members

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01

INTRODUCTION 05

PROCESS 11

COLUMBIA’S SPATIAL NEEDS 15

RETHINKING THE COGNITIVE CAMPUS 21

BUILDING PROJECTS 27

PROJECTING COLUMBIA’S IDENTITY 35

FINANCIAL STRATEGY 41

THE NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE 42

TABLE OF CONTENTSCONTENTS

PAGE

C O L U M B I A

C O L L E G E

C H I C A G O

M A S T E R

P L A N

01 MASTER PLAN PROCESS CHART

02 COLLEGE STATISTICS 03 SCHOOL STATISTICS COMPARISON

04 KEY INDICATOR TRENDS COMPARISON

04 UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT AND RESIDENCY

05 LEARNING INSTITUTION GROWTH COMPARISON

06 STUDENT ENROLLMENT SUMMARY

07 CREDIT HOUR SUMMARY

09 INTERVIEW SUMMARY AND PARTICIPANTS

12 CAMPUS SURVEYS 13 NEIGHBORHOOD MAPPING

17 COMPARATIVE CAMPUS SIZES

19 COGNITIVE MAPPING

24 BUILDING EVALUATION

25 BUILDING SPATIAL ANALYSIS

41 DEPARTMENTS BY BUILDING

42 CURRENT DEPARTMENT AREAS

48 BENCHMARKING REPORT

55 PROJECTIONS 56 PROJECTION FORMULA DESCRIPTION

57 PROJECTED DEPARTMENT AREAS

58 PROJECTED SPATIAL NEEDS

62 BEST PRACTICES REPORT

85 BRAINSTORMING REPORT

99 STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING OPTIONS

A P P E N D I XA P P E N D I X C O N T E N T S

This document is a summary of the research and recommendations of the Master Plan team. More detailed information and complete research data may be found in the APPENDIX.

PAGE

C O L U M B I A

C O L L E G E

C H I C A G O

M A S T E R

P L A N

01EXEC

UTIV

E SUM

MA

RY

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Columbia College Chicago is currently undergoing an

important transformation. Over its one hundred year

history it has moved from a small commuter school

to a nationally recognized arts and media college.

With the adoption of the Columbia 2010 strategic

plan in 2004, Columbia became poised to challenge

institutions with established reputations and

considerably more resources. To achieve its full

potential, Columbia 2010 contends that

Columbia should do many things, but

one of the most important changes is to

transform its campus.

02

EXEC

UTI

VE

SUM

MA

RY

Today Columbia occupies twelve buildings of roughly

1.2 million square feet in Chicago’s South Loop

neighborhood. For the most part, the campus is barely

visible, even though roughly 11,000 students move

through the area on a daily basis – living, learning and

experiencing this non-traditional urban campus. As

envisioned in this plan, by 2010, Columbia’s presence

in the South Loop will be highly visible and its brand

well recognized.

This plan is the product of a study that began in late

2004. It details the work itself, lists the findings of

our research and offers detailed recommendations

for achieving the goals outlined in the Columbia

2010 strategic plan. Those goals describe a physical

environment that is cohesive, possesses a sense

of place and is made up of flexible and adaptable

facilities.

RESEARCH PHASE

The planning team knew that it needed to form a

complete understanding of the current campus before

it could begin planning for the future. Research

undertaken to develop that understanding included:

Stakeholder Interviews: The design team

interviewed Trustees, administration, faculty, staff,

student and alumni representatives, neighbors and

community officials.

Campus Survey: Each of Columbia’s twelve academic

buildings was inventoried for physical condition and

space allocation.

Benchmarking: Columbia’s facilities were compared

with competing and/or comparably sized arts and

media institutions around the country.

Best Practices: Case studies of recently completed

campus centers were prepared to shed light on the

range of campus centers opening across the country.

Neighborhood Mapping: An inventory of the

Columbia College Chicago neighborhood was

prepared, documenting the existing infrastructure and

character of the area.

Cognitive Mapping: Hundreds of Columbia College

Chicago students participated in a survey that

detailed their daily use of the campus and its facilities.

Brainstorming: Experts in South Loop real estate,

campus planning, development and marketing spent a

day discussing the future of Columbia and its plan for

growth.

FINDINGS

The research and design activities yielded several

key findings which form the heart of this report.

Highlights of the findings follow.

Spatial Needs: Columbia provides significantly less

academic and student services space per student than

the institutions with which it competes. The shortfall

affects teaching as well as non-teaching space.

Overall, in order to meet the goals of Columbia 2010,

the college needs an additional 427,000 net square

feet of space.

Suitability of Facilities: Because of Columbia’s long-

standing commitment to renovating older buildings,

many of its current facilities, because of their small

structural grids, proximity to the El tracks and

inadequate building systems, are not suited to the

curriculum. The suitability issue is especially acute in

the media arts, which require a large scale production

facility.

Need for a Campus Center: The College’s current

lack of common space hinders its ability to offer an

environment that supports collaboration. A Campus

Center would provide a common ground for the

Columbia community, facilitating interdisciplinary

interaction. A centrally located Campus Center would

also bridge the north and south nodes of campus

activity, making the campus more connected.

E X E C U T I V EE X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y S U M M A R Y

03EXEC

UTIV

E SUM

MA

RY

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report offers several specific recommendations

at the campus level and at the building level. It also

recommends specific projects designed to address

Columbia’s identity in the South Loop.

Campus Recommendations:

Campus Zones: The campus should be planned to

reflect two distinct zones of activity. An academic

zone east of the El tracks between Roosevelt and

Congress is recommended to consolidate and

concentrate student activity and to help focus

Columbia’s identity on Wabash Avenue. A second

residential zone should overlap the academic zone,

but cover a larger area to allow for flexibility in

acquiring residential facilities.

Campus Hubs: Four distinct campus hubs are

recommended. These hubs – Administrative,

Studio, Campus Center and Performance – will act

as focal points within the larger campus, creating

concentrations of activities.

Remote Facilities: The media production facilities,

which require large column-free space, are probably

not economically feasible in the academic zone. These

should be located near public transit, where affordable

property is available. There may be other facilities not

yet identified that should also be located away from

the South Loop campus.

Building Recommendations:

Campus Center: A campus center of approximately

225,000 net square feet is recommended for the

centrally located College-owned site at 8th and

Wabash. As envisioned, the Campus Center would

contain a Student Center that would support a variety

of activities designed to encourage interdisciplinary

collaboration. It would also provide general

classrooms and academic space, primarily for the

School of Liberal Arts and Sciences but with some

facilities for the School of Fine and Performing Arts as

well.

Media Production Center: In order to maintain

its leadership position in Media Arts instruction,

Columbia needs a 36,000 net square foot production

facility than can support its film, video, television, and

interactive media programs. Such a facility requires

column-free, high-ceilinged space not available or

practical in the academic zone .

Performance Hub: A critical mass of performance

venues, classrooms, workshops and rehearsal space

should be developed in a single facility. At this

time, the preferred site for this facility is on the

College-owned property at 11th and Wabash. The

Performance Hub is planned for a later phase of

Columbia’s development so other sites may be

considered at that time. Such a facility, which will

total approximately 166,000 net square feet, will

encourage collaboration and interaction between

different performing disciplines and will connect the

performance-going public to Columbia.

COLUMBIA’S IDENTITY

In response to Columbia 2010’s call to create a campus

with “a distinct sense of place with a recognizable

street presence,” we propose two strategies:

A Network of Icons: Through the use of three

elements – iconic architecture, arcons and super-

graphics, Columbia would establish a strong presence

in the South Loop. Such elements would create unity

among the various buildings without obscuring the

rich variety of architecture that characterizes the

neighborhood. In so doing, they would strengthen

Columbia’s brand and signal to the community that

Columbia is a hotbed of creative activity.

Sidewalk Art Installations and Creative Street Furniture: By allowing Columbia’s creative energy

to spill onto the street in the form of storefront

installations, public art and street furniture, the

College will further project its identity to visitors,

passersby and neighboring institutions.

04

Columbia Campus Properties

CTA Green Line

CTA Orange Line

CTA Brown Line

CTA Purple Line

CTA Blue Line

CTA Red LineCTA Red Line

Metra Lines

Lake Michigan

Millennium

ParkThe “Loop”

Sears Tower

The Art Institute of

Chicago

Buckingham Fountain

Field Museum

Shedd Aquarium

Soldier Field

Adler Planetarium and Science

Museum

Northerly Island

Chicago River

O R I E N TAT I O N M A P

OR

IEN

TATI

ON

MA

P

RANDOLPH STREET

CONGRESS PARKWAY

ROOSEVELT ROAD

MIC

HIG

AN

AV

ENU

E

N

05INTR

OD

UC

TION

The Columbia 2010 document is a strategic vision that outlines

Columbia College Chicago’s aspiration “to be the best student-centered

arts and media college in the world.” This physical Master

Plan focuses on those Columbia 2010 goals that can

be achieved through improvements to Columbia’s

physical environment, ultimately resulting in a

“coherent, student-centered campus” with a “distinct

sense of place.” The plan focuses on student services, academic

spaces, and on the creative community of Columbia College Chicago’s

physical campus as a whole.

P U R P O S E O F S T U D Y

I N T R O D U C T I O N

06

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N

C O L U M B I A 2 0 1 0T H E S T R AT E G I C P L A N O F C O L U M B I A C O L L E G E C H I C A G O

In 2004, Columbia College Chicago

completed Columbia 2010, the

strategic plan for the growth and

development of the College. In

it, the Vision 2010 Committee

set goals for the College that

focus on “rigorous student

learning outcomes, instructional

excellence, service to students

and an engaged, diverse campus

community with the purpose of

being a student-centered college

providing the best arts and media

education in the world.” (Columbia

2010 p.3) This Master Plan

proposes changes to the physical

environment of Columbia College

Chicago that support realizing the

strategic goals of Columbia 2010.

“Columbia 2010 sets an exciting

new direction for Columbia College

Chicago that is anchored in the

College’s historic mission and values.

It sets the stage for Columbia to

achieve national and international

recognition for excellence in arts and

media practice, as well as excellence

in arts and media education in the

context of liberal arts. The plan

also reinvigorates the principles

of Columbia’s democratic mission

for the new century. To realize

these aims, Columbia 2010 defi nes

institutional objectives, establishes

a framework by which those

objectives will be achieved and

posits a set of measurable criteria

by which to evaluate success.”

from the Columbia 2010

Executive Summary

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

C O L U M B I A 2 0 1 0 C A M P U S E N V I R O N M E N T G O A L S

Develop a coherent campus layout with a focal axis on Wabash Avenue.

Create a distinct sense of place with a recognizable street presence.

Develop flexible and adaptable facilities.

Work with the City and South Loop community to develop a Wabash

Avenue arts/education corridor.

Acquire expansion space on and around Wabash Avenue.

Add space primarily through adaptive reuse; use new construction

selectively.

Develop a campus life that enriches learning and builds strong bonds

to the college community.

Develop facilities that support a campus life that enriches learning

through increased inter-disciplinary collaboration.

These goals are woven throughout this Master Plan as guidelines for the achievement of the Columbia 2010 vision.

07INTR

OD

UC

TION

S T U D E N T D E M O G R A P H I C S

GENDER ENROLLMENT STATUS

86%full time

14%part time

54%full time

46%part timepart timepart

52%female

48%male

71%female

29%male

ETHNICITY

American Indian/Alaskan Native

American Indian/Alaskan Native

White Non-Hispanic 63%

Black Non-Hispanic 16%

Hispanic 10%

Unknown 5%

Asian/Pacific Islander 3%

Non-Resident Alien 2%

1%%% 1%

Asian/Pacific Islander4%

Non-Resident Alien5%

Unknown7%

Hispanic11%

Black Non-Hispanic15%

White Non-Hispanic57%

International 2%

United States 13%

Midwest 12%

Metro Chicago 38% Chicago 27%

PLACE OF ORIGIN (UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY)

18

22

30

40

50

Undergraduate average age is 22Full time average is 21

Part time average is 28

1%

58%

35%

4%

1%

1%

1%

59%

28%

5%%

8%

Graduate average age is 30

0 (years)AGE

Undergraduate students

Graduate students

08

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N

C O L U M B I A B U I L D I N G I N V E N T O R Y

33 E. CongressAcademic

600 S. MichiganAcademic

618 S. MichiganAcademic

619 S. WabashAcademicAcademic

623 S. WabashAcademic

624 S. MichiganAcademic

731 S. PlymouthResidence

1014 S. MichiganAcademic

72 E. 11th StreetAcademic

1104 S. WabashAcademic

1306 S. MichiganAcademic

1415 S. WabashAcademic

Existing Floors

Existing Gross

Square Footage

Original Building

Name Year Built Historic Status Architect

Year Acquired by

ColumbiaOwned Buildings

Alfred S. Alschuler

Christian A. Eckstorm, additional work by Holabird & Root

William C. Zimmerman (original), McClurg Schumacher & McClurg (renovation)

Solon S. Beman

Christian A. Eckstorm (first 7 stories), Alfred Altschuler (7 story addition)

Howard Van Doren Shaw

Christian A. Eckstorm

Holabird & Root

Jenny & Mundle

Anker S. Graven

1999

1975

2006

2003

1983

1990

1993

1998

1981

1999

1999

1996

7

15

10

3

10

14

7

4

6

8

3

1

166,571

189,120

105,000

21,000

196,592

156,909

162,000

26,348

75,778

176,791

31,029

17,854

Congress-Wabash Bank

Harvester Building

Arcade Building

N/A

Second Studebaker

BuildingBuilding

Musical College Building

Lakeside Press Building

Sherwood School of Music

Chicago Women’s Club

Ludington Building

Paramount Publix Film Exchange

N/A

1925-26

1907-08

original 1913, major

renova-tion 1958

N/A

1895

1908 (first 7 stories),

1922 (7 story ad-

dition)

1896-97 and 1902

1912-13

1927-30

1891-92

1929-30

N/A

No

Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District

Non-contributing building in the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District

No

Potentially eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status

Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District

Individually listed on National Register (1976), Contributor to the South Loop Printing House Chicago Landmark District

Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District

Eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status

Individually listed on National Register 1980), Chicago Landmark (1996)

Potentially eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status

No

600 S. Michigan 600 S. Michigan

33 E. Congress

619 S. Wabash

618 S. Michigan 618 S. Michigan

623 S. Wabash

624 S. Michigan 624 S. Michigan

731 S. Plymouth731 S. Plymouth

1014 S. Michigan S. Michigan 72 E. 11th 1104 S. Wabash 1306 S. Michigan S. Michigan 1415 S. Wabash

09INTR

OD

UC

TION

Academic Building (Owned)

Academic Building (Leased)

Student Residence (Leased)

Student Residence (Owned)

Columbia Owned Property Lot

CTA Station

Metra Station

CTA Green Line

CTA Orange Line

CTA Brown Line

CTA Purple Line

CTA Blue Line

CTA Red Line

Metra Lines

C U R R E N T R E A L E S TAT E H O L D I N G S

Media Arts

Fine and Performing Arts

Graduate and Continuing Studies

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Student Services

Administration

444

33 E. Congress

623 S. Wabash

624 S. Michigan

600 S. Michigan

University Center

1306 S. Michigan

1014 S. Michigan1006 S. Michigan

754 S. Wabash (Buddy Guy site)

11th and Wabash (Sculpture Garden)(Sculpture Garden)

1104 S. Wabash

731 S. Plymouth

2 E. 8th

1401 S. Wabash (parking lot)

1415 S. Wabash

24 E. Congress

619 S. Wabash

1112 S. Wabash (in negotiations)

72 E. 11th

20 45 8 12 15

4441

26 49

45 12 11 274441

33

8 8 16 4916

92 8

100

85 11

70 15 15

100

64 36

building use by percentage

20

618 S. Michigan

Congress

Harrison

Balbo

8th

9th

11th

Roosevelt

13th

14th

Mich

iga

nM

ichig

an

Wa

ba

shW

ab

ash

State

Dea

rbo

rn

10

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N

C U R R E N T C A M P U S E N V I R O N M E N T

Columbia College Chicago is located in twelve academic buildings

that stretch from Congress Parkway to 14th Street in the South Loop.

Most buildings are commercial loft construction and many were

built prior to 1930. Five of Columbia’s buildings are within Chicago

Landmark Districts and one is an individually designated Chicago

Landmark. For more information on the history of Columbia’s

buildings, please see the Appendix. Columbia’s facilities, primarily

owned by the College with some leased, have been acquired over

time. The College’s traditional scarcity of resources resulted in buildings being purchased in response to an immediate need for space. This organic growth, while resolving immediate space shortages, has resulted in a campus without an overall organizational strategy.

The classic American university campus bears no resemblance to

the roots of the modern university which began in Italy, France

and England during the Middle Ages. The University of Paris (now

known as the Sorbonne) was founded in 1150 A.D. Because it was

a guild of teachers who taught wherever space was available, the

university was not a place but a collection of individuals bound

together as a universitas or corporation. There was no campus. Even

today the buildings of the Sorbonne are embedded in the city of

Paris. The student experience was and is remarkably diverse, with

the city serving as an important part of the educational experience.

Like the Sorbonne, Columbia College Chicago is also rooted in the

city. It has had a growing presence in Chicago’s historic South

Loop neighborhood since the mid-1970s. The South Loop’s distinct urban quality is well suited to the Columbia College Chicago community. Over the past ten years, the South Loop has

undergone significant change. New residential construction and

commercial redevelopment have energized the neighborhood

street life and increased the market value of neighborhood

properties. As the neighborhood evolves, Columbia remains a driving force behind the revitalization of the South Loop.

Columbia 2010 expressed the desire to “create a coherent, student-

centered campus.” To achieve this goal, the Master Plan team

recommends establishing a clearly understandable physical campus

organization and a strong identity in the neighborhood and city.

By comparing Columbia’s campus with

those of other Chicago-area institutions,

the Master Plan team learned that Columbia

is no more spread-out than other area

institutions and, in many cases, has a greater

student population density. More campus

comparisons can be found in the Appendix.

DePaul UniversityLincoln Park Campus

Columbia College Chicago

11PR

OC

ESS

The Master Plan team is composed of Columbia College Chicago

staff working with professionals from the fields of architecture,

campus planning, real estate planning, and higher education

planning. Over the course of a year, the team has

worked to develop a detailed understanding of

Columbia’s current campus use, the challenges

posed by continuing enrollment growth, and

the desire to improve the quality of its learning

facilities and student experience. This understanding

is what allows the team to make recommendations that will best

help Columbia achieve its Columbia 2010 goals.

PROCESS

12 The Master Plan team’s recommendations were

informed by a variety of data-collecting strategies. The

studies were undertaken concurrently. These included:

RESEARCH : Stakeholder InterviewsThe design team interviewed members of the board of trustees, administration, deans, faculty, staff, student and alumni representatives and community leaders and officials about Columbia’s

current performance as an educational institution

and individual visions for the future of Columbia. The

opinions voiced during these conversations were

instrumental in developing a full understanding of the

needs of the campus.

More information on these interviews can be found in the Appendix.

RESEARCH : Campus SurveyThe design team conducted a survey of Columbia’s

current campus buildings to create a data bank. Each of Columbia’s twelve buildings was surveyed for condition, use, and distribution of space to academic departments and schools. The design

team also interviewed the facility managers of

each department to assess how well the current

facilities are satisfying departmental needs and what

improvements are necessary or desired. Please see the

Appendix for a complete record of Campus Survey results.

RESEARCH : Benchmarking

As Columbia develops its national reputation, it is

competing more and more with other institutions

for students. The benchmarking study compared Columbia College Chicago to similar institutions across the United States. The schools selected

for the study are comparably sized or are known

competitors in the field of arts and media education.

Each school responded to a statistical survey, focusing

on the number of students as well as how much and

what type of space is provided for the education of

students (for teaching and for student services). The

survey results establish a reference for Columbia

College Chicago to understand what the “norm” is

for similar institutions and how Columbia might be

evaluated by a prospective student.

The full Benchmarking report can be found in the Appendix.

RESEARCH : Best PracticesColumbia College Chicago has a culture that is defined

by its history, its arts and media orientation, and its

urban location. As the campus continues to grow,

these characteristics distinguish Columbia from most

other colleges. The Master Plan team sought out

campus buildings at other institutions that provide lessons to be learned. The design team prepared a series of case studies on several recently completed campus center-type facilities. campus center-type facilities. campus center-type facilities. The studies focused

on three areas: the building program and the three areas: the building program and the three areas:

connection between academic and student space,

the use of iconic architecture as a communicator

of campus identity, and the relationship to the

surrounding urban context.

A summary of the Best Practices study can be found on page 25; the full

report is available in the Appendix.

RESEARCH : Neighborhood MappingAn inventory was taken of the neighborhood in

and around the Columbia College Chicago campus.

Locations of transportation services, nearby educational institutions, restaurants, stores and shops serving the student population, and historic architecture were collected and mapped. These

maps show where community infrastructure needs

development. The design team responded to many

anecdotes about the challenges of sustaining campus

facilities over areas distant from each other by

comparing the size and scale of Columbia’s campus

with other campuses in the Chicago region.

The results of these surveys cam be found in the Appendix

RESEARCH : Cognitive MappingThe team’s market research consultant conducted a

survey that sought to understand the way students use the campus. Specifically, students described their

arrival, use of, and departure from campus. The results

provided a clear understanding of the movement of Columbia’s students over the course of an average day,average day,average day including where they arrive on campus

and at what time, how much time they spend in which

buildings and on which activities.

PR

OC

ESS

M A S T E R P L A N P R O C E S S

13RESEARCH : Brainstorming

The design team gathered experts in the areas of South Loop real estate, real estate development, campus planning, and marketing for a day-longsession to discuss the future of Columbia College Chicago and its plan for growth. The brainstorming

discussions came to focus on six primary topics:

the educational experience, the Columbia College

Chicago community, the financial plan, Columbia’s

outside image, the campus plan, and the South Loop

neighborhood. While many of the comments voiced

during the brainstorming session affirmed our other

research of the campus, some insights were unique,

pointing to unexpected ways to realize the Columbia

2010 goals.

To review a summary of all the Brainstorming discussions, please see the

Appendix.

DESIGN : Campus IdentityBased on research findings and the Columbia 2010

goals, the design team developed recommendations

for increasing Columbia’s presence in the South Loop. These recommendations include consolidating

the campus and using various “branding” techniques

to promote Columbia’s identity.

These recommendations are discussed in depth in the “Rethinking the These recommendations are discussed in depth in the “Rethinking the These recommendations are discussed in depth in the “

Cognitive Campus” and “Projecting Columbia’s Identity” sections of this

document.

DESIGN : Building Projects SequenceAfter determining the amount of additional space

needed at Columbia, the team created and tested a series of possible solutions to challenges for future growth. These solutions were reviewed with

Columbia’s stakeholders to confirm that all facets of

the problems of growing in the South Loop can be

resolved. From there, the best solution was further

developed and priced for construction.

All strategic programming options can be found in the Appendix.

PR

OC

ESS

S T A K E H O L D E R I N T E R V I E W S

8 Trustees of the Board

3 deans

6 members of the administration

15 program directors and chairpersons

4 alumni

22 faculty and staff

5 student leaders

S U M M A R Y

Columbia College Chicago is

unique as an arts college in

an urban center with a liberal

admissions policy and tuition-

based funding that has

never been supplemented

by endowments or capital

campaigns.

There is a strong consensus

among deans, faculty, the

administration and students

that Columbia College needs

a center for student activities

and college gatherings.

Columbia College desires

to be a “student-centered”

institution, but currently

does not have the resources

to fulfill that goal.

The student residences

on campus have had an

important impact on the use

of the campus, and the need

for more student-oriented

facilities. One result of this

change is that the retention

rates and graduation rates

are improving.

14

The University of Notre Dame’s Giovanini Commons is

a flexible work space

within the Mendoza

College of Business

Administration.

Walls and furniture

can be easily

moved to create different room sizes with power

and teledata infrastructure everywhere. The

spaces are designed to be flexible allowing

users to adapt space to spontaneous needs.

The City University of New York’s Baruch College has

recently completed a “Vertical

Campus” - a center that gathers the

primary functions of a traditional

campus center and academic

program spaces as well as student

services, student life functions,

and administrative offices all into

a single vertical building. The

Vertical Campus is a center of

activity for up to 4,000 students

at a given time, placing student amenities at the heart of the campus.

The Kimball Center for University Life at New York University (NYU) contains the traditional

functions of a student center with emphasis on arts-related functions including

rehearsal and performance

space and a large theater. NYU’s student services

and student life functions are also in the Kimball

Center. The center’s location adjacent to Washington

Square Park gives it a position of significance for

the surrounding neighborhood, acting as a hub

for exhibiting studio work and performance.

Maryland Institute College of Art’s Brown Center is a

campus center that does not contain student amenities.

On the ground

floor are a large

performance hall

and gallery space.

The arrangement

of the space

makes it a hub for creative activity visible to the public at the intended

center of campus. The architecture of the building

is iconic; creating visibility and a presence for the

campus as a whole that it has not had in the past.

PR

OC

ESS

DePaul University’s student center contains

the classic functions of a

campus student union: a

large gathering room, a food

court, and offices for student

government or clubs. This

student center is a clubhouse for studentsand does not contain academic spaces. The

architecture matches surrounding buildings.

The new McCormick Tribune Campus Center at

the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) also has

a classic student

union program

of functions.

Faculty dining

and alumni/

donor space along with student dining, computer

lab facilities, student services and student life

offices are all in one place. A traditional student

center provides a social hub for the campus. The architecture of the campus center is iconic, and the center has quickly become an emblem that is stimulating to everyone passing by. The center visibly connects the campus by

incorporating paths between sides of the campus.

The University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business has gathered all of the functions of

its premier business school into a single iconic building in the midst of the University of Chicago’s Hyde Park campus. The building

is uniquely

designed

among the

typical classroom buildings on campus with the typical classroom buildings on campus with the

intention of creating an intersection between students and faculty. Organized around a central

sky-lit space are lecture rooms, seminar rooms,

lounge spaces, a sit-down restaurant, student

services offices and the pick-up for mail. These

provide a variety of spaces in which to meet,

for any size or character that is comfortable.

BEST PRACTICES : CAMPUS CENTERS

15SPATIA

L NEED

S

Columbia College Chicago has always faced pragmatic challenges to providing

facilities for teaching its students. Columbia provides less teaching

space and less space for its student community than

most of the schools that it competes with for students.

A major component of progress toward the Columbia

2010 goals must be made through improvements to

the physical spaces of the learning environment.

The learning environment includes traditional classrooms and studio

spaces as well as gathering spaces, critique areas and performance

venues. In addition, Columbia 2010 sets collaboration between students

and between students and faculty as a priority. y. y. Physical space must be

provided for the non-traditional spaces needed to realize this goal.

SPATIAL NEEDS

CO LU M B I A’ S C U R R E N T L E A R N I N G E N V I R O N M E N T

16

SPA

TIA

L N

EED

S

The design team documented both the physical

condition of the campus and how the existing

space is being used. This survey revealed

that the current state of Columbia’s learning

environments varies from building to building.

Most of Columbia’s historic buildings are structurally sound and in relatively good condition for their age. While some of Columbia’s current learning spaces are state-of-the-art, almost half of Columbia’s buildings need renovation. These range from cosmetic

improvements to upgrades to the base building

mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems.

Although the Master Plan focuses on planning

for growth, the current facilities are an important

part of Columbia’s future. There should be an ongoing investment to maintain and upgrade Columbia’s current facilities. Historic buildings are a unique resource

that should be maintained and restored.

Many of Columbia’s buildings have small column

grids that are typical of buildings built prior to

1940. Small column bays are difficult to use for classroom, rehearsal or lab space. Although

departments have made these teaching spaces in

older buildings work for them, some classrooms

are cramped or have awkward proportions due

to the small column grid; many have obstructive

columns within the space. Buildings with

small column grids yield less teaching space

than buildings with large column grids.

Some of Columbia’s learning environments are

uncomfortable or distracting. Their problems

include noise interference from passing El trains

and inadequate room temperature control.

While many of Columbia’s programs are cutting edge, providing infrastructure to support them is a constant challenge. Infrastructure issues include

providing back bone for computer technology and

wiring, providing adequate ventilation hoods for

science labs and providing theaters with fly space.

A detailed summary of these learning environments

by building is provided on a chart in the Appendix.

CAMPUS SURVEY SUMMARY EXISTING USE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE (SF)

Academic Departments 447,343

General Classrooms 40,197

Student Support 106,085

Administration 68,435

Subtotal 662,060

Circulation/Core (37% of total) 393,610

TOTAL 1,055,670

17C O L U M B I A N E E D S M O R E C O M M O N S PA C E

Columbia 2010 lays out a sophisticated goal for teaching creative disciplines that emphasizes collaboration and encourages learning that takes place outside of structured class situations. These types of learningf learningf help prepare students

for the real world; providing experiences similar to those that

students will have in their professional careers. This experience

supports the student’s production of a “body of work”.

In the past, Columbia has provided space as needed to make

classrooms available to deliver credits. Space was added

in response to specific departmental class loads and as a

result, space for extracurricular education is constantly in

short supply. At off-peak times, classrooms are used for

extracurricular education, but as demand for classrooms space

grows, neither extracurricular nor classroom function is well

served. Improved scheduling and tracking of available space

will make the most of limited resources. The current lack of dedicated common space hinders opportunities for collaboration and general interdisciplinary interaction.

The need for, and benefits of, space for extracurricular activity

was cited in interviews with faculty and students and in the

expert brainstorming session. Extracurricular spaces include

structured venues like performance space and galleries,

collaborative fabrication spaces and meeting rooms where

students from different disciplines can work together, and

casual spaces like student lounges. Spaces would be flexible

and adaptable to meet constantly evolving needs.

SPATIA

L NEED

S

SUPPORTING A “BODY OF WORK”

A primary goal for improving

the quality of students’ learning

experience, universally agreed

upon by administrators and

school deans, is supporting the

production of a “body of work.”

A “body of work” should evidence

a well-rounded curricular and co-

curricular education, preparing

students to enter the job market

after graduation. Columbia 2010

seeks to expand collaborative

projects that extend learning

beyond classroom teaching but

few current facilities support this;

students do not have enough

opportunities to practice their

art, or “learn by doing.” The

types of spaces needed to

support the production of a

“body of work” reflect a shift in

Columbia’s profile of a learning

environment. Until recently, the

College’s focus was primarily

on classroom teaching spaces.

This Master Plan proposes

increased attention to multi-use,

multi-disciplinary spaces such as

group study rooms, presentation

and critique areas, flexible “open

plan” areas and generic raw

“messy” spaces.Multi-disciplinary

spaces should be distributed

throughout campus, avoiding

School, department or individual

ownership as much as possible.

In addition, the quality of

education provided by

Columbia would be improved

by adding facilities to support

student and faculty research,

showcase spaces of various

sizes and degrees of formality,

meeting rooms, community

gathering spaces, and space

for students to produce work.

Planning Principle: Flexible

learning spaces

18 S PAT I A L I M P R O V E M E N T S A N D A D D I T I O N S

In estimating the amount of space Columbia College Chicago

needs to add, the Master Plan team has considered two factors:

the gradual increase of the number of credit hours provided to support a growing student population and an improvement in the quality of the students’ learning experience. The qualityof students’ learning experience is supported by facilities that increase the faculty’s ability to fulfill program goals and spaces faculty’s ability to fulfill program goals and spaces faculty’that provide for Columbia 2010’s goals for collaboration and co-curricular learning.

KEEPING PACE WITH THE GROW TH IN STUDENT POPULATION

Columbia College Chicago’s student population has been steadily rising

since the 1960s with over 10,000 students currently enrolled. Columbia’s

liberal admissions policy is an important part of its mission for arts and

media education, enabling all qualified applicants to attend. Consistent with Columbia 2010, the student population is conservatively expected to grow at a rate of 2% each year to reach nearly 13,000 students by 2015.

From a total of 500 beds in Fall 2003 to over 2,000 just two years later in

Fall 2005, Columbia’s residential population is transforming the College.

Columbia anticipates that a steadily increasing number of students will

want to live on campus. Currently, Columbia’s residences are at maximum

capacity, serving roughly 20% of the student population. It is estimated that

housing demand will begin to exceed the secured supply of beds in 2007 as

the student resident population continues to rise.

This rise in the student resident population increases the College’s need

for student services facilities as well as the hours those facilities are open.

Evening theater performances, guest lecture programs and film screenings

have increased on-campus resident student participation along with

demand for services provided by the health center and counseling.

330

762

5,5935,5935,5935,5935,6955,6955,6955,695

4,6724,588

625

271

ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY SCHOOL 2005* - 2015

Fine a

nd

Perform

ing

Arts

Med

ia A

rts

Gra

du

ate a

nd

Co

ntin

uin

g Stu

dies

Libera

l Arts a

nd

Sciences

1,996 2,433

38,442 46,86046,86046,86046,860

42,423 51,71351,71351,71351,713

48,614 59,26059,26059,26059,260

CREDIT HOUR GROWTH BY SCHOOL, 2005* - 2015

Fine and Performing Arts

Media Arts

Graduate and Continuing Studies

Liberal Arts and Sciences

SPA

TIA

L N

EED

S

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2,039 2,240 2,357 2,456 2,548 2,638 2,727 2,816 2,905 2,993

HOUSING DEMAND

number of beds

secured available housing

* 2005 figures are 2004 + 2% growth

19

KEEPING PACE WITH COMPETING INSTITUTIONS

The Master Plan team commissioned a benchmarking

study comparing Columbia with similar institutions. The

study confirmed that the College needs to expand facilities

well beyond its base growth needs to remain competitive

with other institutions. Columbia currently provides 105

gross square feet (gsf ) per student, which is substantially

lower than the 337 gsf per student average for competing

institutions. Most schools with comparable student populations have more space overall as well as more space devoted to student amenities. Schools provide

an average of 10.1 square feet per student of student

amenities. Columbia currently provides 3.3 square feet per

student. A more detailed explanation of this study as well

as the associated statistics can be found in the Appendix.

Allocating total credit hours provided by Columbia

College Chicago to classrooms available, Columbia uses

its classrooms 28 hours each week, less than the widely

accepted standard of 35 set by the Texas Higher Education

Coordinating Board. By optimizing class schedules across

schools and departments, the College can find greater

resource in its existing classrooms, and limit the resources

dedicated to building additional classroom space. Class

schedule optimization would primarily affect general

classroom usage, making the School of Liberal Arts and

Sciences (LAS) its greatest beneficiary. Although fewer

students are enrolled in LAS degree programs than in

the School of Fine and Performing Arts and the School

of Media Arts , LAS provides classes required by students

from all schools, using classrooms that are often shared

between schools. The credit hours provided and growth

in credit hours provided is similar for all three schools. If class schedules are not optimized, Columbia will need an additional 23,000 square feet of classroom space to meet the demand for class credits.

SPATIA

L NEED

S

ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SPACE NEEDED

(all figures in NSF(all figures in NSF( )all figures in NSF)all figures in NSF

Based on Population GrowthFine and Performing Arts 5 7 , 0 0 0Liberal Arts and Sciences 7 , 0 0 0Media Arts 5 0 , 0 0 0Graduate and Continuing Studies 4 , 0 0 0General Classrooms 2 , 0 0 0Student Services General Offices 3 , 0 0 0 Library 1 8 , 0 0 0

Student Activities 1 6 , 0 0 0Administration 2 3 , 0 0 0

TOTAL 180,000

Based on Quality Growth Fine and Performing Arts 4 4 , 0 0 0Liberal Arts and Sciences 2 2 , 0 0 0Media Arts 4 3 , 0 0 0General Classrooms + Meeting Rooms 1 2 , 0 0 0Student Services Library 2 1 , 0 0 0 Food Services 1 1 , 0 0 0 Student Activities 7 5 , 0 0 0

TOTAL 228,000

Area to be Replaced 95,000

Purchase of 618 S. Michigan (-) 76,000

TOTAL 427,000

* assumes optimized schedule

*

*

HOW MUCH SPACE IS NEEDED?

The Master Plan team has concluded that, to

accommodate growth and increased quality,

Columbia should add 427,000 net square feet. “Net square feet” accounts for the functional ” accounts for the functional ”

learning spaces and does not include area

required for circulation and building services.

20

SPA

TIA

L N

EED

S

RETHINKING THE CAMPUSthe “go forward” costs of buying and

renovating are more than building

new on sites Columbia already owns

new buildings are a more efficient

use of space and resources

using available building stock would

compromise the College’s program needs

the College already owns property for

two new buildings

Planning Principle: Minimize Capital

RENOVATE OR BUILD NEW

Columbia College Chicago has typically added

space to its campus by purchasing existing

buildings, usually 60 or more years old, and

renovating them over time to meet the college’s

functional needs. Although Columbia 2010recommends that space should continue to be added through adaptive reuse, the Master Plan

team compared this strategy with new construction and found building new to be less expensive and more effective.

As evidenced through surveys of existing

buildings and interviews with faculty, the

spatial requirements of some spatial requirements of some

current learning environments

do not fit well into available

building stock. Spaces currently

most desired by the schools

– theater and studio space,

large classrooms, and lab space

– have not been provided in

part because they cannot be

accommodated in the existing

stock of buildings.

A plan to use existing buildings

would lead to inefficiencies, making it

necessary to compensate by purchasing

and renovating more buildings than

would be required of new construction.

An evaluation of recent projects in which

buildings were purchased and renovated revealed

that purchase-plus-renovation costs are nearly the

same as the cost of new construction. The College

currently owns property that is ideal for two needed

campus buildings, thus removing the need to raise

capital for land purchase for these projects. In the

future, Columbia’s need for space and opportunities

available may make adaptive reuse a viable option.

At present, however, the Master Plan team believes that the Columbia 2010 goals can be best met through new construction projects.

21RETH

INK

ING

THE C

AM

PU

S

RETHINKING THE CAMPUS

To better understand the campus as it

is today, the team interviewed faculty,

students, college staff and neighborhood

leaders, conducted an inventory of

Columbia’s buildings, and commissioned

a Cognitive Mapping survey.

22

RET

HIN

KIN

G T

HE

CA

MP

US C O G N I T I V E M A P P I N G S T U D Y

CAMPUS ACTIVITY TIMELINE

46% of commuter students arrive at the Harrison El stop

23% of commuter students travel using Metra

The top five Columbia building destinations for students are: the (three) 600 block buildings 33 E. Congress University Center of Chicago residence

86% of students visit one or two buildings in a day

47% of student activity from 9 AM to 9 PM is class time

outside of class, residents spend more time dining, studying, and hanging out while commuter students spend more time traveling and working

In March 2005, a survey was emailed to all Columbia

students inviting them to track and report their

movements around campus over the course of one

week. The survey results sh showed that commuter

students arrive at public transportation terminals

and parking lots while residential students walk from

dormitories to academic buildings. Throughout the

day, traffic is concentrated around the 600 blocks of

Wabash and Michigan Avenues. Some students travel

further south to the specialized facilities around the

intersection of Wabash and 11th Street. Most students

visit just one or two buildings in a day. In the evening,

commuter students return home while resident

students study or participate in cultural activities on

campus.

Interviews revealed that the Columbia College Chicago community is largely separated into departmental areas. For example, photography

students are unlikely to cross paths with graphic

designers even though the departments are near

each other. Routes between classrooms or buildings

do not offer opportunities for encounters between

students of different disciplines. There are few areas

for students to meet and “hang out” while on campus.

Columbia 2010 sets a goal for collaboration between

students in different disciplines, but the physical

campus does not support this goal.

CLASS

WORK

DINING / RECREATIONDINING / RECREATION

STUDY

9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%students

23RETH

INK

ING

THE C

AM

PU

S

CAMPUS TRAVEL PATTERNS

Roosevelt

Congress

Wa

ba

sh

MOST COMMON CAMPUS DESTINATIONS

Ogilvie Station

Union Station

Adams / Wabash Adams / Wabash Green LineGreen Line

IC Metra

Michigan

Wabash

Dearborn

Congress

Harrison

Balbo8th

9th11th

Roosevelt

13th14th

State

Clark

Mich

iga

n

academic buildings

residential buildingsresidential buildings

transit stations

24

RET

HIN

KIN

G T

HE

CA

MP

US

As surveys from the cognitive mapping exercise showed,

there are currently two disconnected hubs of activity at the

north and south ends of campus. Based on these findings, the

participants in the brainstorming discussion on Columbia’s

financial and real estate planning encouraged the College to

focus its real estate strategy, consolidating its campus facilities

from both the south and the west. Consolidation would

concentrate student activity over a smaller area, enhancing

the vitality of the campus community by intensifying the

activity on campus. activity on campus. activity on campus. The campus zone boundaries proposed

by the Master Plan team reflect these recommendations.

Academic and administrative facilities should be

concentrated into a zone east of the El tracks that are

mid-block between State and Wabash, south of Congress

and north of Roosevelt. Most of Columbia College Chicago’s

current facilities are within this area. Future growth of

academic and administrative functions should be within these

boundaries. The zone for residential facilities overlaps the

academic zone, but as these facilities are less critical to the

active daytime energy of the campus, residential facilities

may be located within a larger area. This allows more

flexibility to make use of real estate opportunities that arise.

Over time, as Columbia acquires property focused within the recommended zones, the campus will naturally have a more vital campus community and a stronger presence in the South Loop.

Some Columbia programs require functions that are

incompatible with the South Loop central campus. For

example, the spaces required for Media Production are

large, column-free, ground-level sound stages with high large, column-free, ground-level sound stages with high large, column-free,

ceilings. This type of facility, which is limited to one or two

stories because it is not financially viable to build above the

clear-span sound stages, is not economically practical in a

neighborhood with steadily rising property values. For this

reason, some facilities, on a case-by-case basis, will be

sited at a remote location.

The current real estate pattern of acquiring property

throughout the South Loop has inadvertently isolated the

various academic programs. Under the recommendations of

the Master Plan team, the concentration and overlap of the

campus zones will bring students from different disciplines

together. The conscious juxtaposition of the variety of uses on Columbia’s campus increases opportunities for encounter, discussion and collaboration outside the classroom, embracing the development of a campus life that enriches learning.

C A M P U S Z O N E S

Planning Principle:

Academic Campus

Boundaries

Planning Principle:

Residential Zone

Planning Principle:

Remote Facilities

CongressCongress

Harrison

Balbo

8th

9th

11th

Roosevelt

13th

1414thth

Jackson

Van Buren

Mich

iga

n

Wa

ba

sh

State

Dea

rbo

rn

25RETH

INK

ING

THE C

AM

PU

S

A second recommendation for the reorganization of

Columbia’s campus is the development of campus hubs.

Hubs are facilities that act as focal points within the

larger campus, creating concentrations of activity.

The Master Plan team envisions four hubs: a Campus

Center, a Studio hub, a Performance hub, and an

Administrative hub.

The hubs grow from existing patterns of use of campus

buildings. The current administrative hub should remain at

the 600 block of South Michigan. The cognitive mapping

study and building surveys showed studio art and liberal

arts and sciences programs concentrated around the

intersection of Wabash and Harrison. Performance-based

programs are concentrated around Wabash and 11th

street. Few students travel between these concentrations

of activity. The team recommends that studio activities

and performance activities continue to be focused at their

current locations but that the related creative disciplines

are expressed at street level. A proposed Campus Center, A proposed Campus Center, A proposed Campus Center

containing liberal arts and sciences programs, space for

studio arts, and new student activity functions, is located

between these two academic hubs, central to all activities

on campus. The Campus Center will be a destination for the Columbia community, increasing the student traffic along Wabash and providing a vital link between the concentrations of activity at the north and south ends of the campus.

The concept of campus hubs grew directly out of the

brainstorming session, where participants discussed the

need for the campus to have a central focus in addition

to smaller, School-based hubs. School-based hubs allow

each school to develop and maintain an individual identity

within the larger framework of Columbia College Chicago.

Although each hub is the nucleus of School-specific

activities on campus, no hub is the exclusive domain of any

one School. The hubs express the public aspects of each specialty, encouraging participation from students and faculty from all Schools and the neighborhood community.

C A M P U S H U B S

Academic Zone

Acceptable Residential Zone

Administrative Hub

Studio Hub

Campus Center

Performance Hub

Planning Principle: Campus Hubs

CongressCongress

Harrison

Balbo

8th

9th

11th

RooseveltRoosevelt

13th

1414th

Mich

iga

n

Wa

ba

sh

State

Dea

rbo

rn

Jackson

Van Buren

26

Columbia’s campus has two distinct faces. The

campus “front yard” is the more formal and

historic Michigan Avenue. The campus “back yard”

is the casual, funky spontaneity of Wabash Avenue.

The front yard and back yard each have important

messages to communicate about Columbia

College Chicago, but each plays a different role.

Michigan Avenue and Grant Park are Chicago’s

front yard; a traditional grand boulevard and the front yard; a traditional grand boulevard and the front yard;

location of many of the city’s cultural institutions. location of many of the city’s cultural institutions. location of

The status and reputation of Michigan Avenue makes Columbia’s front door at 600 South Michigan an impressive welcome for parents, visitors, and prospective students. The front

door should be open, welcoming, and also

substantial.

Grant Park provides open green space for an

otherwise hard-surfaced urban college campus.

The campus planning experts who participated

in the campus brainstorming session stressed the

importance of maintaining a connection to the

park as a vital resource for students. At the end of

each year it is a primary location for the Manifest

celebration. The park is a place for students to study, relax, or simply escape the intensity of the rest of the campus throughout the year.

In the campus “back yard”, along Wabash Avenue the focus will be on Columbia’s sustaining creative community. Focusing

Columbia’s real estate expansion within campus

zones would concentrate student activity in a

smaller area, making street life more vibrant.

With an increase in the student presence on

campus, the College needs to become more

permeable at street level, making the creative

process and works of art visible to passersby.

Columbia College Chicago should actively place

creative activity in as many storefront windows

along Wabash as possible. Galleries, fabrication

workshops, active studios, theater or dance

rehearsal space or performance art venues

are possible functions. Featuring the creative

process in a storefront window will facilitate

communication between the different disciplines

and with the neighborhood population in general.

F R O N T YA R D / B A C K YA R D

RET

HIN

KIN

G T

HE

CA

MP

US

27To achieve the Columbia 2010 goals, the

Master Plan team proposes three

building projects: a campus center,

a media production center, and a

performance hub. Completed over the

course of ten years, the renovated 618 South

Michigan building and these three projects

will add 503,000 net square feet, satisfying the

College’s projected need for additional space

to accommodate both growth and quality

improvements.

BUILDING PROJECTS

MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTERThe new home for Columbia’s

film, animation, and post-production programs in a

remote location.

CAMPUS CENTERProvides academic

facilities and student amenities at the

crossroads of Columbia’s campus.

PERFORMANCE HUBCentralizes Columbia’s

performance-based disciplines and connects

them to the public.

BU

ILDIN

G P

RO

JECTS

618 S. MICHIGANExpansion of library

and related uses, limited classroom,

administrative, and faculty space

Congress

Harrison

Balbo

8th

9th

11th

Roosevelt

Mich

iga

n

Wa

ba

sh

State

Van Buren

Jackson

28 RECOMMENDED REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES

The three building projects highlighted in this Master

Plan are specific solutions based on specific needs. As Columbia and the South Loop continue to change, the College should remain flexible to real estate opportunities that fall outside these building projects.

To guide this development, the Master Plan recommends

an overall real estate strategy that grew out of

the brainstorming discussions and has been refined

throughout the process.

NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE

Columbia College Chicago is committed to

environmental sustainability for all future building

projects. Not only are sustainable construction practices

better for our planet, environmentally conscious buildings

use fewer energy resources and are less expensive to

maintain. Although construction costs may be higher,

Columbia believes that the long-term benefits outweigh

the initial expense.

SPACE MADE AVAILABLE IN EXISTING BUILDINGS

The general sequence of Columbia’s development

manages growth by adding new space while renovating

and reprogramming existing space. As programs move into the new facilities, vacated spaces in existing buildings will be available for expansion of adjacent functions or the consolidation of programs currently dispersed in different places.

C O L U M B I A’ S D E V E L O P M E N T : T H R E E M A J O R C O N C E P T S

consider selling properties South of Roosevelt

continually monitor portfolio to determine which buildings to maintain and which to replace

consider acquiring additional properties “on campus” for future expansion

demolish/rebuild most inefficient or unworkable space

utilize land Columbia College Chicago currently owns for expansion

33 E. Congress 41,000

600 S. Michigan 32,000

623 S. Wabash 49,000

624 S. Wabash 36,000

1104 S. Wabash 17,000

TOTAL 175,000all figures in nsf

BU

ILD

ING

PR

OJE

CTS

Planning Principle: Environmental

Sustainability

29

MICHIGAN AVEMICHIGAN AVE

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B

Offices

Offices

Offices

Offices

Offices

Offices

Offices

Library

Possible Temporary Student Center / Library

Possible Temporary Student Center or Gallery

Possible Gallery Mechanical

6 1 8 S O U T H M I C H I G A N

BU

ILDIN

G P

RO

JECTS

The 618 South Michigan building is

being acquired by Columbia College

Chicago. As the home of The Spertus

Institute for many years, existing

facilities in the building include offices,

classrooms, a library, and archives.

With Spertus Institute’s construction

of a new space (scheduled completion

early 2008), Columbia College Chicago is acquiring the current 76,000 net square foot, 10 story building adjacent to Columbia’s

library and significant facilities on the

600 South Michigan block.

The building will be renovated to fit

the College’s needs and a functional

program for the building is currently

being developed. Lower floors nearly

align with floors of the 624 South

Michigan building adjacent to the

south providing an opportunity for

horizontal expansion of the library. A

temporary student center or gallery

space is being considered at ground

level. The existing elevators were

designed with capacity for office

functions and limit potential high

capacity classroom use at upper levels.capacity classroom use at upper levels.

The new space will address some of

Columbia’s most immediate needs and Columbia’s most immediate needs and

will free space in other buildings as

functions are relocated giving strained functions are relocated giving strained

schools space to grow.

30

BU

ILD

ING

PR

OJE

CTS

Have an iconic presence.

COLUMBIA’S CAMPUS CENTER SHOULD:

A bold architectural gesture, reflecting the Columbia’s creative

and innovative nature, would announce the College’s identity

to the South Loop and could be the nucleus around which a

distinct sense of place for the campus could be created. The

Campus Center would be centrally located on campus, so that it

is a natural intersection for the college community.

Have flexible spaces. New construction would provide space with fewer columns,

making the building more adaptable to serve evolving needs.

It would also have an integrated technological back bone and

effective mechanical systems with flexible capabilities.

Be student-centered. It should provide places for students to collaborate on

interdisciplinary projects, to collaborate with faculty, to present , to collaborate with faculty, to present ,

work to other students and the community, places to eat and to

study and to cross paths with students from other departments.

The Campus Center will also help meet the needs of the growing

student resident population as it increases space for the services

most used by these students.

Improve learning environment quality. As Columbia’s student population continues to grow, new

teaching space will be a constant need. New construction

should provide as much capacity to accommodate growth

requirements as allowed by zoning.

Support the production of a “body of work.” It should provide students with areas to work outside of the

classroom on individual or group projects as well as multi-

disciplinary showcase spaces, performance venues, and storage

facilities.

Located at Wabash and 8th streets, the Campus Center will bring

together student-centered functions on five floors accessed

directly from the street. Its central location and student-focused

program will make it the symbolic core of the campus, providing

a point of convergence for the campus community and an

interface between Columbia College Chicago and the public. A

newly-constructed building will provide higher quality studio

space, theater space and gallery space than has been achievable

in older renovated buildings. Since all students take classes in

the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS), most of the LAS

academic space and general classrooms will be moved to this

new building making it an academic hub as well as a crossroads

for students.

C A M P U S C E N T E R2 2 5 , 0 0 0 N S F

31BU

ILDIN

G P

RO

JECTS

Student Center

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Fine and Performing Arts

Student Center

Student Center

Student Center

Student CenterMechanical

Expansion

Rooftop Space

1414

13

12

11

1010

99

88

77

66

55

44

3

2

1

GradeGrade

The Campus Center should provide new teaching space as well as Student Center functions

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Wa

ba

sh

A

ve

nu

e

The “StudentThe “StudentThe “Center” could

include a wide range of facilities that

would facilitate interdisciplinary

collaboration and discussion.

Cam

pu

s C

om

mo

ns:

C

om

mo

n R

oo

m /

Mee

tin

g A

rea Student

Organizations Space

Core

Administrative Offices

Collaborative Project Space

Group Study / Breakout Rooms and Lounge / Event Space

CoreCrit

Performance Space Below

Multi-disciplinary Performance Space

Core Cafe / Study Area

Shared

Reh

earsal

Admin.Offices

Multi-disciplinary Student Showcase

Space

Service

Core

Lobby

Study Area Bookstore

Stud

ent

Act

ivity

Cafe/Study Area

Mechanical Computer Lab

Core

Stud

ent

Lockers

Stud

y Area Bookstore

Lower Level

Fine and Performing Arts

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Liberal Arts and Sciences63,00063,000

162162,000

,000

32

BU

ILD

ING

PR

OJE

CTS

M E D I A P R O D U C T I O N C E N T E R3 6 , 0 0 0 N S F

THE MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTER WILL:

offer state-of-the-art production studios

to support film, video, television and

interactive media programs

include digital studios – only one of a

few in the Chicago area

position Columbia to respond to rapid

change in the media industries

help build a diverse workforce

invigorate the local film industry

Columbia College Chicago’s Media Production Center

(MPC) would enable the College’s School of Media Arts

to offer production studios to support its film, video,

television, and interactive media programs. A “media production center” will significantly improve teaching and learning at Columbia, and better prepare its students for the highly competitive film industry.

As a college with a student-centered mission, Columbia must provide its students direct experience in state-of-the-art production facilities, train them in technologies

and processes of the visual media environment, and

develop the capacity of its students and graduates to

create and produce outstanding film and video works.

The MPC physical plant would feature approximately

36,000 square feet of sound stages, production and post-production spaces, editing studios, fabrication shops, a motion-capture studio, and animation labs. The MPC would also feature suitable sound stages for

television production and digital-friendly facilities.

This includes a green stage, a computer generated

imaging environment for digital filmmaking and

other digital-based work. Digital studios, one of the

most in-demand resources by industry professionals,

would be one of only a handful in the Chicago area.

33BU

ILDIN

G P

RO

JECTS

Parking

Main Sound StageSecond Sound

Stage

Directing Stage

Fabrication Shop

Motion Capture Studio

Core + Circulation

Animation Lab

Main Sound StageBelow

Second Sound Stage Below

Motion Capture Studio Below

Ground Floor

Floor 2

The The T concentration of media production disciplines in a flexible, easy-to-use space would keep Columbia at the forefront of Media Arts education.

The current location for production does not provide the large-scale spaces

needed to help the school succeed. The current two-story facility is in a location

that underutilizes valuable real estate. The current site can be leveraged to create

significant opportunities remote from Columbia’s core campus. The media production

facility should be accessible by public transit and have ample space for loading,

unloading, and parking.

Costumes

Storage Office Loading Dock

Media Lab

Class/Lab

Core + Circulation

Storag

e

Classroom / Lab

34

BU

ILD

ING

PR

OJE

CTS

18

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

GradeGrade

Allowable Development RightsZoning laws governing building density allow new buildings to transfer unused density from adjacent buildings. A Performance Hub at 11th Street and Wabash could be taller by using rights transferred from adjacent Columbia buildings.

Fine and Performing Arts

Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts

Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts

Dance Theater

Black Box TheaterFabrication Studio

Fine and Performing Arts

Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts

Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts

Fine and Performing Arts

Performance Theater

Alley

A new Performance A new Performance Hub would encourage Hub would encourage collaboration collaboration between performance between performance disciplines while disciplines while increasing the increasing the visibility of Columbia visibility of Columbia productions at street productions at street level.

The Performance Hub would be a focal point for

performance disciplines on campus. A critical mass of performance venues, classrooms, workshops and rehearsal space could be collected near 11th Street and Wabash, the current location of many facilities for theater, film and music. This suggested location

is based on current facility organization and property

availability, but because the Production Hub is

planned for a later phase of Columbia’s development

there may be more suitable options open at that time.

Performance disciplines collaborate in the work-

world to bring performance productions to reality, so

students should learn from similar collaborations in

the school learning environment. The Performance

Hub would create more opportunity for collaboration.

The Performance Hub would be a center where the public will meet and connect with Columbia College’s productions. Performance disciplines

are currently in the central campus, but have limited

visibility. This project would be visible and have a

strong presence on campus and in the South Loop.

P E R F O R M A N C E H U B1 6 6 , 0 0 0 N S F

35PR

OJEC

TING

CO

LUM

BIA

’S IDEN

TITY

P R O J E C T I N G

COLUMBIA’S IDENTIT Y

Columbia 2010 calls for the college to “create a

distinct sense of place with a recognizable street

presence.” The urban, hands-on texture of

the campus contributes to the students’

identification with Columbia’s non-

traditional approach to enhancing the

identity of its campus community.

Building-scaled super-graphics and presentations of

student art are striking expressions of creativity in the

South Loop; these are strong first steps toward establishing

Columbia’s identity. Clearer identification of each of

Columbia’s buildings and expressions of the day-to-day

vitality of the community will develop this idea further.

36

O V E R V I E W O F I D E N T I T Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

PR

OJE

CTI

NG

CO

LUM

BIA

’S ID

ENTI

TY

The Master Plan team recommends establishing Columbia’s distinct

sense of place in two ways. First, the College should introduce

a network of iconic elements to distinguish the campus as a unique

and unified entity. Second, by increasing the creative presence of the Columbia community in storefront windows and open locations in the neighborhood, a recognizable street presence can be developed.

Columbia’s creativity should not be limited to its buildings; it should spill

on to the street.

The importance of increasing Columbia’s visibility in the South Loop

was part of many topic discussions at the Brainstorming Session. It

was considered influential on a range of issues including the College’s

strategy for campus planning, the need to build the campus community,

and enhancing Columbia’s image in the college community, the

neighborhood and among prospective students. A comment from the

Brainstorming Session was that a “funky Wiener Werkstatte streetscape”

could emerge on Wabash. The comparison to this vibrant Viennese

artists’ movement has become a guide in the development of Columbia’s

identity.

The Wiener Werkstatte, an important 20th

century art movement, was at once highly

interdisciplinary, theoretical and practical. The

workshops produced functional objects including

furniture, silverware, dishes and plates, rugs,

linens clothing and art objects that depended

on collaboration between a variety of disciplines.

The Workshop artists sought to advance their

belief that art and beautiful craftsmanship should

be integrated into everyday objects. Artists’

creative ability was developed by the practice of

making these objects — learning by doing. Their

hope was that the availability of these objects

to the public, not just the elite, would uplift the

laboring class and be a small step toward social

equalization. Columbia’s energetic, hands-on

approach embodies this same spirit. approach embodies this same spirit.

37PR

OJEC

TING

CO

LUM

BIA

’S IDEN

TITY

PR

OJEC

TING

CO

LUM

BIA

’S IDEN

TITY

PR

OJEC

TING

CO

LUM

BIA

’S IDEN

TITY

38

Proposed art installations on non-Columbia buildings intensify the College’s presence in the South Loop

Vertical LED (Light Emitting Diode) arcons identify a building as part of Columbia’s campus.

PR

OJE

CTI

NG

CO

LUM

BIA

’S ID

ENTI

TY

A N E T W O R K O F I C O N S

A key strategy for creating a unique sense of place

is the creation of icons that exemplify Columbia’s

artistic presence in the South Loop. By conveying

Columbia’s creativity and institutional values to

both the college community and the neighborhood,

the iconic elements would mark the presence of

the school. Through repetition, these elements

would also link Columbia’s buildings into a cohesive

campus. The Master Plan team proposes threeelements: iconic architecture, “arcons” and super-graphics.

Iconic architecture conveys the message of an institution in a direct and powerful way.institution in a direct and powerful way.institution in a direct and powerful way.institution in a direct and powerful way. Many Many

institutions use iconic buildings to communicate institutions use iconic buildings to communicate institutions use iconic buildings to communicate

their presence and their core values to the their presence and their core values to the their presence and their core values to the

community. An iconic building on Columbia’s community. An iconic building on Columbia’s community. An iconic building on Columbia’s

campus will express to the neighborhood that campus will express to the neighborhood that campus will express to the neighborhood that

“Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we “Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we “Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we

do.”

A second element for establishingestablishing Columbia’s Columbia’s

presence in the South Loop is a repeated repeated repeated

architectural feature or “arcon” that marks the architectural feature or “arcon” that marks the architectural feature or “arcon” that marks the

College’s facilities. Vertical scrolling LED (Light Vertical scrolling LED (Light Vertical scrolling LED (Light Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the campus would unite the new architecture, the campus would unite the new architecture, the campus would unite the new architecture, the existing buildings, and the general campus. existing buildings, and the general campus. existing buildings, and the general campus. The

content of the arcons would be programmed at a arcons would be programmed at a arcons would be programmed at a

central location, allowing the College to maintain central location, allowing the College to maintain central location, allowing the College to maintain

constant control and also making king content content change

easier. The movement and chang and change of content e of content using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of the College’s campus life.

The current billboard-sized exterior installations The current billboard-sized exterior installations

of student and faculty artwork are an effective of student and faculty artwork are an effective

promotion of the College’s creative presence in the promotion of the College’s creative presence in the

neighborhood. This program should be expanded neighborhood. This program should be expanded

to include more locations, possibly including

installations on the façades of non-Columbia

buildings. By not limiting the artwork to College-owned buildings, Columbia is able to intensify its visible presence within its campus boundaries and engage the neighborhood in the creative life of the College.

Together, these three strategies, iconic architecture,

arcons, and the expanded presentation of artwork,

enhance the presence of Columbiaenhance the presence of Columbiaenhance the presence of College Chicago’s

campus through a network of visual connections.

These elements are deliberate communications of a

Columbia “brand.”

A good example is Eero Saarinen’s TransWorld Airlines (TWA) terminal in New York City. When this international air terminal was built, TWA and international air travel were both new. Saarinen’s terminal conveys a message of futuristic innovation. The New York terminal immediately became TWA’s symbolic heart both metaphorically and as a powerful iconic image.

39PR

OJEC

TING

CO

LUM

BIA

’S IDEN

TITY

sanctioned art interventions under the ‘EL’

sanctioned art interventions on buildings

S I D E WA L K A R T I N S TA L L AT I O N S

Creative presence in the South Loop can also be

established by providing areas for student art

installations. Students would submit proposals

for temporary installations at authorized locations

under the “El” tracks or on the sides of buildings. A

“speaker’s corner” sidewalk performance venue,

in a storefront or out-of-doors, could be open

for performances. Currently underway is the “Art

Escape” program, in which Columbia College

Chicago held a competition for proposals to

use exterior fire escapes as a way of identifying

the College. These moments of sidewalk art, sanctioned and yet slightly outside the norm, reinforce the idea that on Columbia’s campus, art is not limited to the studio or the gallery.

the “Art Escapes” program displays art on fire escapes

40

unique ‘EL’ entrance at the Harrison stop

C R E AT I V E S T R E E T F U R N I T U R E

As the City of Chicago makes plans to improve

the Wabash Avenue streetscape in the campus

area, Columbia’s creative community can seek to add non-traditional street furniture to standard municipal installations. standard municipal installations. standard municipal installations. Some ideas

include introducing sculptural seating options

along the sidewalks, painting the standard

street accessories a distinctly non-standard

color, installing Columbia College Chicago

kiosks, or creating a new entry pavilion to the

“El” stop most used by students. Columbia has

also proposed a design for the “El” platform

and station interior through the Chicago Transit

Authority’s Adopt-A-Station program. Together,

these elements help to identify Columbia’s

campus, not just as an area of the South Loop,

but as an area defined by creativity.

PR

OJE

CTI

NG

CO

LUM

BIA

’S ID

ENTI

TY

“Harrison Haiku” is Columbia’s CTA Adopt-a-Station Proposal

sculptural seating possibilities with painted lamp posts adds Columbia’s character to the City of Chicago’s standard palette

41FINA

NC

IAL STR

ATEG

Y

2006

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Tactical Strategic

CAPITAL BUDGET DEBT AND SALE OF PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE CAMPAIGN

Buildings Program

FINANCIAL STRATEGY

The financial strategy to achieve the master plan is based on

building momentum over time to gather money from several

sources.

Beginning in 2006, we recommend that Columbia College Chicago

begin allocating funds and exploring debt capacity.

A comprehensive public campaign should be launched for

the College that includes funding for new space, scholarships

and learning programs. Columbia should continue to seek

opportunities to acquire existing properties in the South Loop,

and also build a fund for new construction. Naming opportunities

should be identified for potential private donors for existing as

well as proposed spaces.

Federal, state and local government should be solicited for

contributions to Columbia College Chicago’s growth.

As the master plan recommends that the academic campus should

be concentrated between Congress Boulevard and Roosevelt Road,

Columbia College Chicago should allocate the proceeds from sales

of outlying property to fund new building programs.

42

THE

NEW

STU

DEN

T EX

PER

IEN

CE

THE NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE

In recent years dramatic improvements have been made in In recent years dramatic improvements have been made in

the campus environment, yet these changes have, for the the campus environment, yet these changes have, for the

most part, been tactical shifts executed on a yearly basis most part, been tactical shifts executed on a yearly basis

to respond to immediate needs. The Master Plan considers to respond to immediate needs. The Master Plan considers

the campus strategically, thinking about change in the the campus strategically, thinking about change in the

long term, suggesting a synthesis of initiatives which will long term, suggesting a synthesis of initiatives which will

differentiate the Columbia College Chicago experience differentiate the Columbia College Chicago experience

from that of any other institution of higher education.from that of any other institution of higher education.

A student’s choice to study at Columbia College Chicago is A student’s choice to study at Columbia College Chicago is

inextricably wrapped in a choice to live in and experience inextricably wrapped in a choice to live in and experience

the city of Chicago itself. A central premise of this plan the city of Chicago itself. A central premise of this plan

and of Columbia 2010Columbia 2010, is that the Columbia campus should , is that the Columbia campus should

continue to celebrate the character of the South Loop and continue to celebrate the character of the South Loop and

the College’s broader urban setting. the College’s broader urban setting. The challenge is to The challenge is to develop a distinctive identity and to offer a distinctive develop a distinctive identity and to offer a distinctive experience within this setting. experience within this setting.

If a cohesive student experience is the end, then one of If a cohesive student experience is the end, then one of the important means to this end is the campus as the the important means to this end is the campus as the student understands it and uses it on a daily basis.student understands it and uses it on a daily basis.

The Columbia campus has The Columbia campus has Grant Park as its front yardGrant Park as its front yard, a

great urban green space. The front door of Columbia urban green space. The front door of Columbia

College Chicago will remain the historic 600 South College Chicago will remain the historic 600 South

Michigan building. Considered the Administrative Hub Michigan building. Considered the Administrative Hub

of the campus, of the campus, 600 South Michigan is an impressive 600 South Michigan is an impressive welcome for prospective students and will provide welcome for prospective students and will provide current students with an array of administrative current students with an array of administrative services on the lower three levels of the building.services on the lower three levels of the building.

The Harrison Avenue CTAHarrison Avenue CTA stop is Columbia’s back door stop is Columbia’s back door

– a place where, for thousands of students, their daily – a place where, for thousands of students, their daily

experience begins. The Master Plan enhances the sense experience begins. The Master Plan enhances the sense

that this is a gateway to the campus.that this is a gateway to the campus.

Wabash Avenue is the back yard of the campus. With the Wabash Avenue is the back yard of the campus. With the

changes suggested in the plan, changes suggested in the plan, Wabash will become the Wabash will become the campus’s center of gravitycampus’s center of gravity, establishing functional and , establishing functional and

visual connection from Congress to Roosevelt. visual connection from Congress to Roosevelt.

The hub of the activity along Wabash will be the

new Campus Center at 8th and Wabash. The Campus Center will provide a critical point of exchange, drawing students from all disciplines. It will be the true center of the campus where an

individual’s relationship to the whole can be most

directly felt. It will be a place of collaboration,

encounter and creative interaction.

To the north and to the south, Columbia will

develop centers for studio and performance

activities respectively: the Studio Hub and

Performance Hub. These hubs re-think the campus along lines of artistic critical mass of activity – whether one’s work is shown or is performed.

It is this notion of layering a different organizational scheme across the campus that is intended to promote interaction between students (and faculty) of different departments. The Master Plan rejects isolation and embraces

collaboration, sharing ideas and abilities, in its

approach to providing future facilities.

As the College continues to grow, there are three

things to keep in mind as essential elements of the

student experience. First, the campus is part of the city and not a separate place. The College

will become a greater presence in the South

Loop, but it will never replace the neighborhood.

Second, as the campus becomes more of a home to

students and faculty, with places to live, work and

experience the city, the sense of belonging to a creative community will be enhanced. Third, the

campus will convey the sense that this is both a place to create and a place to present creative work in a collaborative environment.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO ADVISORY COMMIT TEEThe Advisor y Committee, formed in the in i t ia l s tages of the

planning process, was open to anyone interested in learning

about and par t ic ipat ing in Columbia’s Master Plan. The

Advisor y Committee held four meet ings which were open to

the ent i re Columbia Col lege Chicago communit y.

Facility Managers

Mary Badger, Theater

Kevin Cassidy, Art & Design

Shannon Epplett, Dance

Jeff Wade, Science Institute

College Council Representatives

Shanita Akintonde

Marcelo Caplan

Staff

Kari Sommers, Alumni Relations

Carol Ann Brown, Student Affairs

Stephanie Conaway, Museum of Contemporary Photography

Lona Livingston, Institutional Advancement

Nick Rabkin, Center for Arts Policy

Mary Oakes, Director of Residential Life

Greg Narlo, Finance

Gigi Posejpal, International Student Affairs

Students / Alumni

Michael Gallo, student

Mark Anderson, student

Jason Taylor, student

Sana Mahmood, student

Vanessa Torres, student

Lauren McLain, student

Bill Cellini, alumnus & trustee

Michael Orlove, alumnus

Arman Ravazi, alumnus

Marci Hughes, alumnus

City and Neighborhood Groups

Alderman Haithcock

Bob McKenna, Chicago Department of Planning and Development

Leslie Gryce Sturino, Historic Printers’ Row Neighbors

Bob O’Neill, Grant Park Advisory Council

Ty Tabing, Chicago Loop Alliance

Louis D’Angelo, Chicago Loop Alliance

Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson, Near South Planning Board

Jeff Key, Greater South Loop Neighbors

Tom Fuechtman, DePaul University

Howard Sulkin, Spertus Institute for Jewish Studies

Board of Trustees

Bob Wislow, Chairman of the Campus Environment Committee

Allen Turner, Chairman

Bill Hood, past Chairman

Madeline Raab

Rick Fizdale

Steve Devick

Deans

Jo Cates, Associate Vice President for Academic Research and Dean of Library

Doreen Bartoni, Media Arts

Cheryl Johnson-Odim, Liberal Arts and Sciences

Leonard Leher, Fine and Performing Arts

Keith Cleveland, Graduate School

Administration

Mark Kelly, Vice President of Student Affairs

Steven Kapelke, Provost / Vice President for Academic Affairs

Sam J. Ross, Vice President for Institutional Advancement

Michael DeSalle, Vice President of Finance and CFO

Paul Chiaravalle, Chief of Staff

Chairs

Bob Thall, Photography

Dick Dunscumb, Music

Bruce Sheridan, Film

Margaret Sullivan, Marketing Communication

Lynn Pena, ASL

Lisa Brock, Liberal Education

Dennis Rich, Arts Entertainment and Media Management

Sheldon Patinkin, Theater

Faculty

Joe Roberts, Arts Entertainment and Media Management

Dominique Cheene, Audio Arts

Jeff Schiff, English

Jeanine Mellinger, Television

Curtis Lawrence, Journalism

Lenore Hervey, Dance Movement Therapy

FRONT AND BACK COVER PHOTOS

BY MICHELE LITVIN