Appendix II

Report on Architectural Standards, Design, and Planning
Among the charges given to the 1999-2000 Campus Planning Committee was the reaffirmation of planning principles formulated in connection with the 1986 planning document. The following text is based on the 1986 and 1991 statements, modified to reflect the state of the campus in 2000.

Introduction
Wake Forest University, like other major academic institutions, faces the challenge of how to plan for an orderly growth in the expansion and improvement of its facilities and, at the same time, preserve the special character of its traditional campus, buildings, and landscape. The importance of campus appearance in establishing the quality and vitality of the institution cannot be overemphasized, as anyone concerned with student recruitment will attest. It is the chapel, the main quad, the library, the magnolia trees, and the playing fields that create the collective image of Wake Forest for students, faculty, alumni, and visitors.When Wake Forest College relocated to Winston-Salem in the 1950s, its new campus was designed according to a master plan developed by Jens Frederick Larson (1891-1981), one of America’s leading campus planners and architect of the entire campuses of Colby and Bucknell, as well as large parts of Dartmouth. A consulting architect to the Association of American Colleges, Larson wrote Architectural Planning of the American College (1933), for decades the most authoritative handbook on the subject.Although not all the projected buildings were constructed, the Wake Forest campus is still one of the most complete examples of Larson’s collegiate style in the country and the only one in the South. It is characterized by: 1) strong axial orientation of buildings in symbolic relationships to one another (Wait Chapel and Reynolda Hall are aligned with one another, and that axial alignment is extended beyond the campus south to the R.J. Reynolds Building in downtown Winston-Salem and north to Pilot Mountain); 2) Georgian Revival brick architecture with its humanistic scale, classical features, stone trim, its regularity and symmetry; and 3) use of courtyards, plazas, and vistas with appropriate plantings to enhance distinctive relationships among the buildings. A desire for a harmonious and orderly environment is reflected in the original campus plan, buildings, and landscape.In recent years, new building and landscaping have been added to the campus. Distinctive modern architecture like the Scales Fine Arts Center designed by Caudill, Rowlett, and Scott, and the Worrell Professional Center design by Cesar Pelli and Associates, contribute to the diversity appropriate to today’s campus. Van Yahres Associates completed a new master landscape plan in 1998. Many of their design concepts and recommendation are being implemented or are incorporated in the 2000 revision of the Campus Master Plan. The Van Yahres firm shall be consulted prior to all new development or construction to ensure that proposed plans are in keeping with their design intent. Before a comprehensive planning process can be continued, an inventory of the existing campus matrix must be taken. The following is a list of the extant characteristics of the Wake Forest campus, which contribute to the formation of our working assumptions.

When Jens Frederick Larson designed the new Wake Forest campus in Winston-Salem in the 1940’s and 1950’s, he worked with generous acreage surrounded by large country estates and farms. He was able to recreate the atmosphere of the original campus in the small, rural town of Wake Forest. The new campus became a quiet, pastoral, academic village with gracious buildings and expansive lawns and forest. Through the years, the beauty and harmony of this campus environment have made it an attractive place to work, learn, and live.

More importantly, the campus environment has shaped the distinctive character of Wake Forest as a major university with a small college atmosphere in which friendliness, civility, and concern for the individual rank equally with academic quality.Throughout the years, the campus environment has changed and lost some of its rural charm. While the campus retains its natural beauty in part, congestion and the growing presence of the automobile have brought problems of limited parking, noise and the threat of further neighborhood development. Attitudes toward and dependence on the automobile have also changed significantly since the 1950's. Careful planning must occur to ensure that the campus can retain its character and resist current threats. The University must take appropriate planning measures to recapture its natural space from the dominance of the automobile.While the rural Wake Forest campus of the sixties can not be completely restored, careful planning and attention to holistic detail in building design can return much of the charm that was once a part of the Reynolda campus. With every building design, site planning must move to the forefront and become a major component of the design process. Such careful planning will ensure that new facilities will be surrounded by green areas and will be well suited to the surrounding facilities and landscape.

Proposal Traffic and Security
Since the 1991 report, the major roads surrounding the Reynolda campus have undergone significant change. Campus traffic patterns have changed with the completion of the Silas Creek Parkway extension. Elimination of the connection between Allen Easley Drive (formerly Faculty Drive) and Polo Road has served to minimize non-University traffic on the northern area of campus while providing the residential area much needed tranquility. These changes have had a major impact on the community traffic that was once a major part of campus life. While the automobile is still a key issue of the campus environment, most of the traffic is associated with students, faculty and general campus life. Parking on campus continues to become a growing problem. Most lots are approaching capacity and many streets are lined with student parking. Several proposed building projects will likely displace additional parking spaces and exacerbate the need to construct new parking structures. The University needs to consider and adopt policies and strategies to minimize student, faculty, and staff dependence on the automobile.

Boundaries
Although located in a relatively busy area of Winston-Salem, the Wake Forest campus is fortunate to be somewhat protected from unwanted development along most of its boundaries. In recent years, the University has purchased several parcels of property north of Polo Road and east of University Parkway. While these residential properties are being utilized for various University functions, their acquisition strengthens the boundary of campus. The committee believes these properties should continue to be residential in nature. The unsightly houses along Student Drive have been removed and replaced with surface parking. This parking area provides approximately 200 spaces and is used for overflow and special event parking, primarily for the ICCEL program in the Information Systems Building. The changes in traffic patterns mentioned in the earlier section have also contributed to a stronger boundary of campus. Additional Reynolda Road holdings should be pursued and utilized as commercial properties. The University recently received the "Davis House" located at the intersection of Reynolda and Polo Roads as a gift. Following significant interior renovation, this property is being utilized as leased commercial property. This prominent real estate continues to strengthen the campus boundary while offering additional revenues for the University. The natural and historic links with Reynolda Village and Reynolda Gardens should continue to be strengthened and protected. The protection of Wake Forest’s boundaries has been aggressively pursued through the years with good results, and should be continued.

Neighborhoods
Wake Forest Officials should work with adjoining neighborhoods to encourage pride and to address area concerns, particularly those attributed to University or student actions. The University will take steps to encourage residents of these neighborhoods to feel a part of the community, and if it plans major changes that might affect those neighborhoods, it will consult with them.If necessary to maintain the neighborhood environment, the University should consider purchasing selected housing for renovation and rental or resale, with appropriate covenants. The University should take care not to undermine the residential quality of its border by its own action. In the particular case of Faculty Apartments, the University should use them as much as possible to house younger faculty and staff and assure their maintenance.

Entrances
The campus entrances have been greatly enhanced since the 1991 revision. Guardhouses have been erected at the University Parkway and Reynolda Road entrances. These facilities have provided an additional means of security while strengthening the distinctive entrances to campus. A gate has also been added to the Polo Road entrance to be secured after hours. The University’s boundaries and entrances should continue to be secure and distinctive, but inviting. The entrances should make a strong statement about the character and quality of the school while providing campus residents a feeling of security.

Maintenance
In addition to routine care of the facilities, Facilities Management should continue to provide increasing levels of preventive maintenance to the campus facilities. A preventive maintenance and work order system has been implemented and will be continually improved and populated to develop a detailed database of maintenance history for all campus facilities. This system should be used to audit the condition and identify maintenance requirements of buildings and grounds. Significant, long standing maintenance problems should be addressed in capital budgets. Supporting items such as satellite dishes and mechanical equipment should be hidden from general view or incorporated into the building landscape whenever possible.

City Liaison
A University administrator should continue to serve as liaison with city/county officials, the Board of Aldermen, the Board of County Commissioners, and neighborhood interest groups. This official will represent the University’s interests with these parties and keep abreast of zoning requests, roadway improvements, and property availability. The University should continue to have an administrator with appropriate personal and professional qualities assigned the duty of city liaison.

Implementation
Capital planning is a consultative process that invites interested parties to help refine the plan. The Capital Planning Committee consists of faculty from all major areas of the University, representatives from Facilities Management, Student Government representation, and professional architects and planners. Other resources and skills will be sought for inclusion when appropriate. The Capital Planning Committee is advisory to the Vice President for Finance and Administration and to the President. The University will have appropriate procedures to ensure that the plan is reviewed every five years (especially by the standing committee structure), revised and followed. The campus plan should be dynamic; at the same time, changes in it should be made with great care.A second review team has also been formed to review proposed building sites from a more holistic view. This team is comprised of the University's design professionals as well as University Facilities Management personnel. This committee’s charge is to review potential sites and facilities to ensure that they meet the architectural and land use guidelines of the Campus Master Plan from the professional’s view. All areas of design will be reviewed including, but not limited to building detail, landscaping design, coordination with neighboring facilities, traffic flow, and overall compatibility with the campus and other University structures.

• Strong architectural unity, reinforced by formal axial planning and consistent use of scale and materials, characterizes the predominately Georgian Revival architecture in the campus center.
• Cross axes are used to organize buildings and spaces into academic, administrative, residential, athletic, and parking zones.
• The major axis between Wait Chapel and Reynolda Hall reflects an historic connection between religious goals and academic and administrative authority.
• Secondary axes run 1) between the science buildings through the library and across Magnolia Court through the area between Calloway and Carswell Halls, where its logic and development are blocked by the asymmetrical placement of the Athletic Center, and 2) from the Reynolda Road campus entrance across the main plaza to the University Parkway entrance.
• The buildings, courtyards, and plazas are organized into an interlocking relationship.
• The campus offers a variety of landscape experiences; a formally planted main plaza, the more informal Magnolia Court, the rolling terrain of the western field, wooded areas, and a connection to Reynolda Village and Gardens. Overall, there is a planned and related hierarchy of spaces and effects. The landscape development follows an approved master campus landscaping plan.
• While recently erected buildings within the campus center have been designed to complement the original Georgian Revival structures, more contemporary designs have been approved outside the center, with the provision that they relate to the older buildings through the use of similar materials, compatible scale and appropriate siting.
• Several recent buildings exhibit indifferent design and generally unsympathetic siting with little regard to existing axes, plazas, and vistas or responsible land use: i.e., Palmer-Piccolo and Collins Residence Halls, the Athletic Center, the Anthropology complex, the townhouses, and tennis center. These problematic sites have in common an insufficient review process.
• The campus is a residential community, including student residence halls and apartments, theme residences, faculty apartments, faculty homes, and retirement community options.
• Conflicts occur frequently between pedestrian and vehicular traffic/parking. The completion of the Silas Creek Parkway extension has made significant reductions in the amount of non-University traffic on campus.
• Efforts to protect the margins of the campus on its east and north from commercial encroachment have been largely successful. The planned acquisition of properties on Polo Road and University Parkway remains incomplete, and appropriate land usage along these boundaries has yet to be decided. University properties along Reynolda Road have been developed for commercial uses.
• Natural areas surrounding the Reynolda Campus are a vital part of the beauty of the University. Sites such as the cross-country track area and Reynolda Village provide important non-academic outlets for University residents to enjoy. These areas are key elements of the Wake Forest environment.

Working Assumptions for Architectural or Landscape Activity
What follows are six working assumptions about the physical nature of Wake Forest University. These working assumptions were developed from a considered analysis of the existing characteristics of the campus and should guide all subsequent architectural and landscape activity on the Wake Forest campus.

• Revise standards and plans as needs and technologies change.
  • The campus plan should incorporate a framework for development that will accommodate changing priorities. Flexibility is absolutely necessary. The planning guidelines should emphasize adaptation to changing circumstances, while trying to avoid ad hoc special interest decisions that flout principles of planning and review
  • A plan is only as good as current thinking. A process of proposal, review, and decision is a part of the continuing academic mission of the University. The campus plan should be seen as flexible in relation to that process.
• Define boundaries and entrances.
  • The University boundaries should present a balance between isolation and expansion, between permanent and impermanent features. They should be secure and distinctive but not defensive. The boundaries should include points of designated entrances and clear bounds as well as points of interface with important adjacent areas, such as Reynolda Village.
  • It is crucial that the campus boundaries be protected from the encroachment of distracting and inappropriate development. When the campus was built in the 1950s, the surrounding area was pastoral and undeveloped. Today, the area of Winston-Salem contiguous to the University faces increasing commercial and industrial development.
  • We are fortunate that the campus is protected by buffer zones to the east (University Parkway), south (Old Town Club), and west (Reynolda Village and Gardens), and that we are acquiring properties on the north side of Polo Road.
  • We must continue to review our policies of land use along our boundaries. Our relationship to Reynolda Village and Gardens could be enhanced, the Faculty Drive area should be protected, the University Parkway residential character should be maintained, and the Polo Road properties studied in light of their long-term relationship to the existing campus core.
  • The entrances to the campus should make a statement about the character and quality of the school. Their architecture should reflect the best architectural details of the campus, for they are the first impression one has of Wake Forest.
• Recognize the impact of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic in planning decisions.
  • We must recognize the impact of traffic on campus planning: 1) pedestrian and bicycle traffic, which should be given explicit priority within the campus, 2) external vehicular traffic, making a distinction between visitors to the campus and casual pass through traffic, and 3) internal vehicular traffic, which should reflect our institutional priorities.
  • Although at one stage Larson’s plan called for cars to drive along the east-west axis across the plaza, the impact of that traffic as foreseen in the 1950s would not have been so pronounced had not AT&T and Reynolds Tobacco located on either side of the campus. The campus position was affected by the evolution of its surroundings; residential areas to its west house many that work in business locations to its east. The consequences of this development have been a long-term source of irritation and a safety threat to faculty, staff, and students.
  • Completion of the Silas Creek Parkway extension has alleviated much of the vehicular congestion on campus created by non-University traffic. Internal pedestrian and vehicular traffic is clearly subject to institutional control. Wake Forest’s campus is compact and tightly organized, easily crossed on foot in ten minutes. The University should evaluate carefully its traffic policy, giving clear priority to pedestrian lanes and bicycle routes, and should restrict the number and use of cars and parking places within the campus center.
  • The current parking policy is skewed toward resident users, and should be reoriented to meet the needs of visitors to campus. Visitors do not know the campus traffic and parking schemes well, therefore they must be given explicit, helpful indications that will allow them to find their way and meet their goals. Visitors should leave with the sense that their visit has been well organized and positive. It is essential both to develop and to implement sound traffic and parking policies and to enforce them.
  • The priorities for parking are 1) adequate spaces based on policy, 2) safety, and 3) proximity. The assumption is that student vehicles are not used for intra campus travel, but for travel to and from campus. Existing lots should be improved by landscaping and decreased scale. The current signage system should be coordinated with a clearly defined parking scheme to ensure that students, faculty, staff, and visitors interact productively on campus.
• Strengthen logical relations between activities and building locations.
  • The plan of Wake Forest divides the campus by means of axes into four main quadrants, and into sub-areas devoted to academics, administration, athletic activity, and residences. The academic buildings and library were constructed along the north south axis and in the southwest quadrant, with Scales Fine Arts Center located across West Field in the northwest quadrant. The southeast quadrant has been the province of athletics and recreation, while the northeast now has the Worrell Professional Center as its focus. The residence halls have been located on the north south axis and on the southern edge of the secondary east west axis. Broadly, undergraduate academics and residences are located along the north south axis and on the west side of campus, and professional schools and activities are located on the east side.
  • A number of buildings have been located without careful consideration of the logic of these zones of activity. Palmer-Piccolo residence hall was erected in the middle of a large, undeveloped area with the result that no open site in the southeast quadrant can be developed without risk of infringement on the residence halls. The anthropology complex was located in the same quadrant without alignment with the campus grid. With the subsequent development of the campus stadium, the lack of integration of these structures was revealed. The Athletic Center was not aligned with the secondary east west axis, thereby blocking development of the academic zone to the east of Magnolia Court. The townhouse residences in the northeast quadrant have no logical relation to the campus plan; the siting of the Professional Center and the Information Systems Building calls their future into question. In addition, the siting of these academic facilities will require ingenious landscaping and careful development to improve their relation to one another and to the Campus as a whole. The siting of Collins Hall in relation to Magnolia Court was done without adequate consideration of the courtyard/building relationship.
  • The siting of buildings is extremely important and can affirm or destroy notions of zones of related activity that were part of the original campus concept. There must be flexibility with recognition that compatible functions are part of productive long range planning. In considering siting, we must also recognize the value of open spaces left for future, unanticipated University needs. Premature development of peripheral sites will make future integrated planning decisions more difficult. The filling in of spaces between existing buildings must be done according to the principle of interrelated courtyards and buildings should be given priority over scattered expansion into open areas.
  • A further recommendation is that Wake Forest continues to consider athletics as distinct from both Health and Sport Science and intramural sports. It should recognize that each plays an important but different role in campus life, and differentiate them through the development of differing zones of activity. Health and Sports Science is part of the academic program, while athletics plays an important but peripheral role to the academic life of Wake Forest and also provides significant interaction with the public. Groves Stadium and Joel Coliseum have already established a pattern of athletic activity away from the campus. Campus sites dedicated to athletics should be designated in conjunction with other University requirements.
• Plan and sustain axes, courts, and vistas to direct traffic, encourage interrelations and create pleasure.
  • Wake Forest was designed with axes, courts, and vistas as major organizing devices. It is important to maintain these formal elements and, in some cases, to strengthen spatial relationships that might be less defined. Each open space needs to be considered both for its own particular nature and as part of the whole campus context.
  • The main quad is a well-defined, formal but inviting space characterized by the reciprocal relationship between Reynolda Hall and Wait Chapel and the colonnaded buildings and plantings while Magnolia Court is somewhat forbidding in its expansiveness and lack of a definite focal point. The central role of the plaza should be maintained, and ideas for enlivening Magnolia Court should continue to be pursued.
  • Campus spaces can be enhanced with an approximately scaled and suitable mix of evergreen and seasonal plantings providing different kinds of colors of foliage. Variety should be encouraged, not only for appearance but also as a buffer against disease that could have an impact on a limited number of species and should emulate natural spaces instead of highly cultivated ones. Planting should be compatible with the overall campus landscape plan.
  • The value of a variety of open spaces must be recognized. A hierarchy of spaces can be identified, moving from the formality of the plaza toward increasing informality in the Magnolia Court, the small courtyards between academic buildings, the residence hall courtyards, Davis Field, and the various playing fields and wooded areas which ring the campus.
  • Without erring on the side of rigid formality, the axis and courtyard system should be respected when siting structures in any area of the campus. New projects should be developed from the center of the campus outward in the interest of long range harmony. We should realize that our mistakes have come from not considering potential long-term relationships among sites, and from inadequate project review. Projects near the perimeter of the campus should be discouraged unless there is compelling evidence for a unique solution to a unique problem. Each generation of planners should try to leave a maximum amount of open, flexible space to their successors.
• Protect the integrity of architectural style on campus.

The Georgian Revival style of the historic campus center, reminiscent of the buildings on the old campus in Wake Forest, was appropriate for the 1950s relocation of a traditional denominational college. It would be unsuitable today in terms of design, construction, maintenance costs, and indeed, relevance to today’s world. Therefore, protection of the integrity of architectural style does not mean that Georgian Revival shapes and details must be copied in new buildings. Instead, one must look beyond the Georgian Revival "facadism" which can lead to superficial imitation, and try to identify those elements that make the campus distinctive and give it coherence. Care must also be taken to protect the interior integrity of the older buildings and resist the temptation to modernize or de-nature the key architectural elements of the facilities. This caution should apply to structural changes as well as cosmetic modifications.

Overall, the character of Wake Forest architecture in the campus center is one of harmony, balance, and regularity. The most important buildings architecturally are Wait Chapel, Reynolda Hall, the Z. Smith Reynolds Library, and the Benson University Center. Each is distinguished by major architectural treatment in scale and placement and in the use of motifs like porticos, quoins, steeples, cupolas, and skylights. All of the buildings in the campus center are symmetrical in elevation, four to six stories in height, and brick with ornamental treatments concentrated on doorways, windows, and horizontal courses. The breaking up of the buildings into overall regular parts, the use of ornament, and the restricted height give them a human scale.

New buildings located in proximity to existing buildings should conform closely to them in scale and design, but with some carefully chosen differences. The continuity of the institution amidst change can be underlined by choices of material, spacing, scale of structures, window patterns, and by emphasis on creative imagination rather than simple copying. Change is encouraged – but in compatible scale, materials, and siting. Differences can become greater in buildings beyond the historic core, as shown by the Scales Fine Arts Center or the Worrell Professional Center.

Thus, variety in design and utilization of new design themes can be incorporated without disturbing the harmony of the whole, and can contribute to the diversity appropriate to a viable educational institution. It is important to leave room for the architect to develop exciting design options. The best protection against inappropriate new building is a sensitive client (representing the campus wide planning perspective) and an able architect. Integrity in new construction should be interpreted to mean 1) use of compatible material, 2) retention of human scale in building mass, 3) careful attention to siting and 4) a campus wide identity including both old and new buildings.

• Use of compatible materials.

• The use of brick can tie together buildings that may vary in detail and function. Care must be taken that the texture, color, range, and joint detail of the best brick work on campus is maintained, although that does not have to mean using the identical brick if a more economical and more suitable substitute can be found.
• Although the cost of the extensive stonework found on the original buildings and wall may be prohibitive today, new buildings might have carefully selected features emphasized by compatible stonework and motifs. Roofing materials should also be sympathetic to the color, texture, and detail of the original work.
• Examples of incompatible materials would include concrete block construction, wooden siding or shake shingles, large areas of reflective plate glass, or prefabricated materials with excessive surface texture or color.

• Human scale in mass of buildings.

• The mass, height, composition, ornaments, and scale of the buildings in the campus core contribute to the feeling of human scale characteristic of the Wake Forest campus. Academic imperatives, students needs, and new technologies may dictate an increase in the size of new buildings. If larger structures are necessary, they should be broken into units that are compatible with the scale of the best buildings on campus.

• Retain the sensitivity of siting of buildings.

• Most current buildings are well adjusted to the topography of the campus. Their siting recognizes that outside spaces are as important as inside spaces. The courts, plazas, and breaks in the contours of buildings give small views and a feeling of personal space, lending special character to the campus.
• The grid system that underlies the building/courtyard relationship must be understood and respected in the planning process. Important open spaces and future buildings should be carefully evaluated to assess the long-term impact of siting decisions on the evolution of the University. Symbolism as well as practicality must be understood.
• Environmental issues should be studied carefully before siting new structures. Consideration must be given to the character of natural features in order to avoid creating overtly artificial situations. The impact on land, water, and air quality should be studied when developing new projects.

• Establish a campus wide identity to add to the existing distinctive academic center of campus.

It is important to emphasize that although the academic center of the campus has a distinctive identity, subsequent planning and new buildings should attempt to establish a campus wide identity. Careful use of the unifying design elements already mentioned will allow new buildings and landscaping to incorporate different design elements to accommodate new needs and new technologies while maintaining harmony with the rest of the campus.

Administrative Structure
Only those with the authority to make considered and wise decisions can accomplish the successful implementation of these guidelines. In conclusion, the spirit of a comprehensive campus plan, after it has undergone the process of review, evaluation, and acceptance, must be upheld.  Administrative recommendations are as follows:

• Affirm the importance of a central planning unit, under the jurisdiction of the Vice President for Finance and Administration and thus firmly located within the central administration, which will hold records, be a resource for subsequent decision making, and enforce a long-term maintenance policy.
• Continue the mission of the Capital Planning Committee, with membership representative of the campus corporate body, which will act as client and be concerned with continuing planning decisions as they relate to the overall campus plan.
• Follow the approved guidelines for the selection of architects that reflects the insistence on quality represented by the existing campus plans and structures.
• Assure that the short and long range recommendations of campus wide physical planning receive the same attention as those of academic and financial planners. Procedures should be developed to assure review of proposals by interested existing bodies, such as the College Institutional Planning Committee and the University Senate Long-Range Planning Committee.