Download Architectural Design Guidelines

A r c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n Guidelines
Architectural
Design Guidelines
2003
2003
Printed on recycled paper
LIST OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
History
Future Growth
Purpose & Organization of
Architectural Design Guidelines
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1
2
5
6
A Firm Basis for Design
Goals and Objectives Defined
Goals for Campus Architecture
7
8
9
10
FEATURE AND SUPPORT BUILDINGS
13
PRIMARY BUILDINGS ON THE CAMPUS
15
18
36
45
62
69
Central Campus - Quad District
Central Campus - Storer Mall District
Central Campus - Silo District
Central Campus - South Entry District
Health Sciences District
THE CORE CAMPUS DISTRICTS
Long Range Development Plan
77
78
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Building Siting & Orientation
- Neighborhoods and Boundaries
- Evolving Campus Core
- Axial Relationships
- Primacy of pedestrians
- Service Access
- Setbacks and Streets
- Building Entrances and Views
- Views from buildings
- Orientation, sun and daylight
- Natural Ventilation
- Windows function and scale
- Blank walls
- Glare and glazing
Building Uses & Activity
- Building use and human scale
- Active building frontages
- Building entrances
- Bike storage
- Temporary buildings
Building Configuration & Appearance
- Massing, scale and character
- Building height
- Roof forms
- Screening equipment
- Materials and Longevity
- Materials exceptions
- Materials and colors
81
82
98
104
LIST OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
Building Structure
-Seismic stability and flexibility
-Equipment space
113
Building Stewardship & Sustainability
- Life cycle costs
- Natural ventilation
- Solar gain controls
- Trees and daylight
- Water conservation
- Irrigation
- Local materials
- Environmentally sound materials
- Durability and maintenance
- Air quality
- Reclamation and recycling
115
CAMPUS FURNITURE DESIGN GUIDELINES 121
Lighting
Seating
Trash Receptacles
Bicycle Racks
Bollards
Poles
Signage
Traffic Controls
Fountains
Drinking Fountains
Sculpture and Other Art Pieces
Telephones
Newspaper Vending
122
124
125
126
127
128
128
128
129
130
131
132
132
Introduction
Int roduction
1
HISTORY
In his memoirs, former Chancellor Emil
M. Mrak remarked, “In designing the
campus, you have to consider space,
beauty, color, the nature of buildings.”
The purpose of these Architectural
Design Guidelines is to identify and
define the nature of buildings appropriate to the UC Davis campus. To do so,
one must understand the character of
the campus and the many facets that
make it unlike any other. A logical place
to begin that analysis is the history of
the University, from its earliest days as
a small farm school in Davisville to its
current esteemed position among the
world’s leading research and teaching
institutions specializing in biological,
environmental and agricultural sciences.
In 1905, the State Legislature approved
establishment of a state agricultural
school, and the following year, 778 acres
were purchased from the Jerome C.
Davis farm. Seventy two miles northeast
of San Francisco and 15 miles from
Sacramento, the ‘Aggies,’ as students
were known were isolated on their
campus. There were just 18 students
when University Farm School opened
in 1909. The first four-year degree
program was established in 1922, and
in 1938 the campus was renamed the
College of Agriculture at Davis. There
was a hiatus during WW II when the
2
The University Farm School opened in 1909.
The main campus was organized around
an axial avenue that ran north from the
library entrance across the Quad all the way
to Russell Boulevard (1956 Master Plan).
Introduction
campus was devoted to military training. After the war, programs diversified,
and a period of vigorous growth began.
This change was formally recognized
by the Regents in 1959 with designation of UC Davis as a comprehensive
campus. The College of Engineering,
and the schools of Law and Medicine
were established during the following
decade. Today, over 26,000 students
are enrolled, with access to more than
one hundred undergraduate majors,
and 75 graduate programs. The original
778 acres have grown to 5,200, and the
neighboring community of Davis has
grown into a city of 52,000 people. The
University comprises three colleges:
College of Letters & Sciences:
Mathematics & Physical Sciences;
Humanities, Arts & Cultural Studies;
Social Sciences.
College of Engineering:
Departments cover 15 different
disciplines of engineering.
College of Agricultural &
Environmental Sciences:
Departments include basic biology,
applied natural & social sciences.
The library entrance brings students of
many disciplines together.
Perhaps because of its early isolation, UC
Davis has always supported a vigorous
student life on campus, with a diversity
of sports teams, clubs and other social
and quasi-academic activities. Most
students live on or near the campus. The
flat terrain of the Central Valley make
bicycles an ideal mode of transport, and
fifty miles of bike paths extend from the
auto-free center of the campus, through
the city of Davis and into the surrounding countryside. Strong environmental
awareness has further promoted cycling
as the transport of choice, so bicycles
are to be found everywhere on campus,
making their accommodation at every
building a necessity.
3
A unique feature of the campus is the 125
acre University Arboretum located along
the north fork of Putah Creek. While
it fulfills its intended use as an outdoor
classroom and laboratory for teaching
and research, the arboretum and stream
establish a strong identity for the 800 acre
central campus at its south entrance.
4
The Arboretum is a botanical collection
as well as a place to relax.
Introduction
FUTURE GROWTH
As the University population grows,
temporary buildings will be replaced by
larger, permanent structures.
During the first decade of this century,
the student population at UC Davis
is expected to grow from 26,000 to
31,000; an average annual growth rate
of 2.2 percent. Faculty will grow by
600 over the same period. Besides the
classrooms, laboratories and student
facilities needed to accommodate this
increase, evolving demands of teaching
and research will be evident throughout
the campus as buildings are remodeled
and expanded, and as new buildings are
added. The need for flexibility in new
buildings to accept subsequent change
is clearly necessary.
5
PURPOSE & ORGANIZATION OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Architectural design guidelines can
frame valued qualities of the built environment in a non-prescriptive yet helpful way to assist those who commission,
design and review new construction,
remodels and extensions of buildings on
the campus. Their purpose is to ensure
consistency in quality, and suitability
in location, orientation and function
between valued existing structures and
those that are yet to be conceived. There
is clearly a vital relationship between the
buildings on campus, the landscape that
they inhabit and the planning principles
by which the campus is organized.
The design guidelines that follow are
intended to be responsive to those
factors without in any sense usurping
them. Human comfort, facilities accommodation and sustainable efficiency are
the immediate concerns of architecture.
These are conditioned by climate, proximity and visibility.
This document begins with an analysis
of the principal non-residential buildings on the campus, and their relationship to one-another. Each building
commentary is provided with an indication of which of the ten goals it demonstrates. From these have been deduced
some basic goals for the architectural
design guidelines before elaborating the
guidelines themselves. At each stage,
reference is made back to the established
campus, to the architecture of specific
buildings and to other campus features.
Certain underlying topics of the guidelines are applicable in many different
places, but these have been conceived
wholly within the context of the existing
campus at UC Davis.
Human
Comfort
Facilities
Accommodation
6
Sustainable
Efficiency
Goals & Objectives
Goals & Objectives
7
A FIRM BASIS FOR DESIGN
The basis for architectural design guidelines on the campus is in the qualities
and character of its best existing buildings, and in aspirations towards qualities
not yet satisfactorily realized. Goals and
objectives are therefore derived in part
from historical example, and in part
from unrealized ambition.
Vitruvius spoke of ‘firmness’ as a
necessary attribute of good architecture.
He recognized the importance of clarity
in vision of what is to be achieved, but
also acknowledged the pitfalls associated
with formulaic composition. There must
be room for innovation at UC Davis, yet
there must be a firm basis that roots all
campus architecture to this particular
place. Definition of the place that is the
campus at UC Davis is derived from:
• Human scale, walking and other
activity patterns;
• Established architecture - its scale,
materials, colors and diverse character;
• Function (teaching, research and
public service, and special equipment
associated with each);
• The relationship between established
buildings and open spaces;
• Climate, and the trees and other
plants that flourish on the campus;
• Campus boundaries and interface
with adjacent neighborhoods;
• The University’s long-range plan,
which will influence future change in
academics, in student life, and in the
buildings that are to accommodate
them.
These are the basis of the goals that
follow.
A physical framework to support teaching, research, and public service mission of the campus.
8
Goals & Objectives
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
DEFINED
Goals express broad design intentions.
Specific and attainable targets that
contribute to realization of goals are the
objectives, and are expressed in the design
guidelines themselves. Between them, the
goals and guidelines describe the universe
of circumstances to be addressed by
architectural design on the campus.
The three goals with which the current
Long Range Development Plan opens
provide a good place to begin:
LRDP Goal #1:
Create a physical framework to support
the teaching, research, and public service
mission of the campus.
LRDP Goal #2:
Manage campus lands and resources in a
spirit of stewardship for the future.
LRDP Goal #3:
Provide an environment to enrich
campus life and serve the greater community.
9
GOALS FOR CAMPUS ARCHITECTURE
Consistent with the three LRDP goals,
and with the place-defining subjects
listed before them, the following goals
specifically address architecture appropriate to the campus:
Goal 5:
Respond to the climate, using to advantage light and shade, open and enclosed
spaces, ventilation and landscape, in
siting buildings and in detailing their
architecture.
Goal 1:
Design buildings first and foremost for
the people who will occupy them.
Goal 6:
Site and orient buildings in anticipation
of continuing growth of the University.
Anticipate future infill developments.
Do not compromise those values for
reasons of expediency, as use of the
buildings will far outlive immediate
difficulties.
Goal 2:
Respect the scale, quality and character
of existing and valued buildings.
Goal 3:
Recognize that the ways in which
buildings are used will change over
time, and build them with the ability to
accept change.
Recognize that more support equipment
is likely to be needed in many building
types, and ensure that they are flexible
enough to accommodate it internally.
Goal 4:
Unique and admired qualities of the
campus depend to no small degree on
the relationships between buildings,
open spaces and landscape. Preserve
and extend such relationships to include
new buildings and other facilities.
10
Goal 7:
Respect the architecture, uses and
urban form of adjacent neighborhoods
in the siting, massing and detailing of
buildings near the campus boundaries.
Goal 8:
Ensure that buildings are conceived
and designed in conformance with
the intentions of the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9:
Use campus resources with forethought
and economy. The spirit of stewardship
implies values of sustainability and
flexibility in all new and remodeled
buildings on campus.
Goal 10:
Select building materials and finishes
that are durable, require little maintenance, and are appropriate to their
surroundings.
Goals & Objectives
Respect the scale and setting of valued
buildings on the campus.
Match architecture to the climate and
the landscape it supports.
Human scale and activity is fundamental
to good design.
Anticipate that every building will have to
adapt to changes.
11
12
Feature & Support Buildings
Feature & Suppor t Buildings
13
FEATURE & SUPPORT BUILDINGS
Not every building on the campus need
be an architectural masterpiece, but all
must contribute to a cohesive whole.
Certain buildings, such as Mrak Hall and
the Performing Arts Center, have a special
landmark function by dint of prominent
location and public-oriented purpose.
Some, such as Hart Hall and the Silo,
have achieved primary status because they
14
are particularly memorable to alumni and
visitors. The design guidelines that follow
are addressed to both primary and background buildings, and do not distinguish
between them. They are about architectural collegiality, and accommodation
of a fertile environment for learning and
research. They are applicable to buildings
throughout the campus.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Primar y Buildings on the Campus
15
PRIMARY BUILDINGS ON THE CAMPUS
Today, there are more than a thousand
buildings on the University of California
Davis campus, with a combined gross
floor area in excess of 11 million square
feet. Those parts of the campus where
academic, administrative and social
activities are most intensely concentrated
are the places that give UC Davis its
identity. These are also the places where
new buildings will infill available sites,
and where existing buildings will be
remodeled, expanded or replaced. It is
here that architectural sensitivities are
greatest, and architectural guidelines
will be of greatest value.
QUAD
STORER
SILO
TERCERO
HEALTH SCIENCES
SOUTH ENTRY
16
Traditionally recognized
districts of the Central
Campus
Primary Buildings on the Campus
While predicated on the character of
the central campus, design guidelines
are equally important in outlying locations. The context may be less sensitive
away from the center, but in time, these
areas will become mature and distinct
districts of the campus. Consistency in
design values from the outset can ensure
compatibility between buildings and
their setting without limiting diversity
or innovation in architectural solutions.
In this section, the characteristics of
primary buildings, and significant
groupings of buildings are examined in
each of the traditionally recognized districts of the campus. The five districts,
with the Campus Commons at their
center, relate groups of buildings to an
expanded circulation system. Beginning
at the Quad, the historic center of
permanent buildings, as opposed to
agricultural structures, the descriptions move through the remainder of
the Quad district, to the Storer Mall
district, the Silo district, the South
Entry District and the Health Sciences
district. The Tercero district which
separates Health Sciences from Silo and
Storer is centrally located, but as yet
includes no primary buildings, and so
is not addressed here. In the following
section, The Core Campus District, a
functional subdivision of the central
campus is examined.
17
CENTRAL CAMPUS - THE QUAD DISTRICT
Shields Library
As the intellectual heart of the campus,
the library building sets important
architectural precedents. Although it
occupies the south side of the central
Quad, the library is oriented away from
it, with the entrance, its only active
side, facing west towards Walker Hall.
The original library, built in 1940
in a distinctive art deco style known
as ‘WPA Moderne’, was a two story
reinforced concrete structure with an
exposed board form finish. Facing
north towards the Quad, cast-in-place
escutcheons decorated doorways, as tile
work had adorned the doorways of earlier buildings on campus. Tall, curved
windows above the main entrance
served as a conspicuous landmark by
day and by night.
Shields Library was expanded three
times before the western addition of
1990 almost doubled its size. At five
stories, the western addition introduces
a denser and more massive scale to the
Quad. The materials too contrast with
its neighbors, being precisely finished
stone, concrete, metal and glass. The
new elevations are deeply modeled, with
concrete transoms, spandrels and glazing at successively greater setbacks from
the full height pilasters at alternating
gridlines. The entrance steps forward
18
The original library entrance terminated an organizing axis that ran
north to Russell Boulevard, halving the Quad with an avenue of trees.
from the façade in a full building height
concrete box with an arched window
overlain by a tripartite curved glazed
screen; a reference, perhaps to the
curved tall window at the entrance of
the original building.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 1: The west entrance faces a plaza
with seating that encourages people to use it
as a rendezvous. Public spaces and an open
courtyard within the library accommodate
quiet contemplation.
Goal 2: The 1990 addition departs
significantly from the scale of the old library
and its neighbors.
Goal 3: The large volumes of the fourth
library expansion anticipate the need for
flexibility.
Goal 4: The open courtyard within the
library is a welcome addition. Spaces to the
south and west contribute little.
Goal 5: The architecture of the west
facade allows a tempered response to
strong, western sun. The open courtyard
responds well to the local climate.
Goal 6: Further growth of the Library will
be challenging, after four expansions.
Goal 7: The fourth expansion of the Library
is remote from the campus edge-goal not
applicable.
Goal 8: Not applicable. This building
preceded the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: The Library departs from
established patterns of orientation.
Goal 10: Durable materials have been used.
The Shields Library expansion included a new main
entrance that re-oriented the building to the west.
19
Walker Hall & Hart Hall
Immediately west of the library is
Walker Hall, built in 1927, and across
Shields Avenue to the north is its contemporary, Hart Hall, completed the
following year. These first permanent
academic buildings sought to imprint
a character in the campus that would
identify it with established institutions
of higher learning in California. With
stucco walls, terra cotta roofs and glazed
tiles around doorways, both buildings
have a distinctive Spanish Mission
flavor. Echoes of this architecture can
be seen in the Hickey Gym (1938)
and in the old central plant building
south of Sproul Hall. In subsequent
academic buildings, the overall scale
and fenestration patterns survived, but
the Spanish Mission signature did not.
Built as a westward expansion of Hart,
and forming a U-shaped courtyard with
it is Robbins Hall (1958), a two-story
reinforced concrete building of unremarkable architecture.
Goal 1: Both buildings maintain a human
scale, and Hart Hall attracts knots of people
front and back.
Goal 2: These buildings sought to establish a
suitable scale, quality and character for the
whole campus.
Goal 3: Simple structure and configuration
have enabled repeated adaptations.
20
Goal 4: These were among the earliest
buildings and sought to establish a suitable
campus landscape.
Goal 5: The Mediterranean style of these
buildings was matched to the climate here.
Goal 6: They anticipated growth on the
open acres around them.
Goal 7: Remote from today’s campus boundary.
Goal 8: Conformed to the original campus
master plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: With the wisdom of hindsight,
better materials choices could be made.
The architects of Hart Hall hoped to establish
a consistent style for campus buildings.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
The architecture of Walker Hall and
Hart Hall established a sense of
permanence and a friendly scale in
campus buildings.
21
North Hall & South Hall
Across the Quad from Hart Hall, and
predating them by two decades, are
two residential halls that adhered to the
timber and shingle palette used by so
many of the early agricultural buildings.
North Hall (1908) and South Hall
(1912) are among the oldest structures
on campus. Their open, shady verandahs, and tree-shaded frontages set a
pattern for student behavior and attachment to the central Quad that has done
much to establish the particular ‘feel’
and sense of place possessed of the
UC Davis campus. The presence of
these two influential buildings on the
east side of the Quad is strengthened
by the modestly scaled Cross Cultural
Center, and the much larger yet compatible Dutton Hall (1998). The consistent
use of materials, domestic scale and
detailing of this group of buildings
make them as memorable as any on the
campus; perhaps especially so because
of their historical association through
adherence to similar scale and materials
with early agricultural buildings that
once predominated at Davis.
Goal 1: These are classic people-oriented
buildings.
Goal 2: North and South Halls establish
a standard on campus for humanly scaled
buildings of quality and character.
Goal 3: As residential buildings, these are
somewhat adaptable.
22
Goal 4: These halls are sited to share the
open space of the central quad.
Goal 5: Overhanging eaves and open porches
respond well to the climate.
Goal 6: These buildings are not intended to
be expanded.
Goal 7: These halls are similar in scale and
character to contemporary neighborhood
buildings.
Goal 8: Consistent with the original campus
master plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Commonly available materials
were used, which today we regard as high
maintenance.
Among the most conspicuous
buildings fronting the Quad,
North and South Halls are also
some of the earliest structures
on campus.
Although uncompromisingly
modern in design, Dutton
Hall respects the orientation,
scale and materials of its
smaller neighbors.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Memorial Union
In sharp contrast to the inactive façade
of the Shields Library fronting the south
side of the central Quad, the Memorial
Union on the north side is extroverted
and populous. At busy times of the day,
throngs of students eating, studying and
socializing eclipse the architecture. The
glazed and shaded ground floor is both
transparent and accessible, extending
the space of the Quad directly into the
buildings. The stylistic mix of architecture is less important than its accommodation of gregarious behavior among its
users. The massing of the buildings steps
up from one and two stories at the edge
of the Quad to five stories at mid-block.
The Bookstore and Freeborn extend
activity through the block to North
Quad, a campus drive that is an extension of downtown’s Third Street.
Freeborn Hall and the north side of
Memorial Union open onto the North
Quad driveway.
Goal 1: This building is designed around
human activity and crowds of students.
Goal 2: Scale, quality and character depart
markedly from those of the Memorial
Union’s older neighbors.
Goal 3: This is a “loose fit” building that
can accommodate change.
Goal 4: The Union shares the open spaces
and big shade trees of the quad to the south.
To the north it shares a very different landscape with Freeborn Hall.
Goal 5: Few concessions are made to the
local climate.
Goal 6: Some growth was anticipated.
Goal 7: Unlike neighborhood architecture in
scale, style and materials.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable materials were used.
Memorial Union accommodates the
indoor-outdoor lifestyle that the climate at
UC Davis encourages.
23
Social Sciences and
Humanities
Across East Quad from the bookstore
is a building that is a radical departure
from the open and gregarious Memorial
Union complex. The Social Sciences and
Humanities buildings are isolated from
their surroundings by largely blank and
fortress-like walls. Where most buildings
on campus have an intimate and integral
relationship with the surrounding landscape, the enclosed courtyards of Social
Sciences and Humanities are brutally
stark, offering little relief from raw
concrete. This is a set of buildings whose
architecture, scale and materials deny the
established values of the campus, and
seek to isolate themselves from it. While
great care has gone into the proportioning and detailing of the concrete and
metal panel walls of these buildings, the
architecture is entirely alien to the UC
Davis campus, and to the adjacent city
neighborhood across A Street.
Goal 1: This building eschews places for
people to congregate or relax.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character of
the architecture are entirely alien to the campus.
Goal 3: Architectural forms are precise, finite
and not amendable to change.
Goal 4: Planted landscape is minimal. Open
spaces are pristine but unwelcoming.
Goal 5: The architecture responds to climate
in that it strictly controls daylight. It generally
isolates interior spaces from the outside world.
24
Goal 6: The complex is complete, finite and
is not amendable to expansion.
Goal 7: The architecture contrasts severely
with the adjacent neighborhood.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: No recognition of values of
stewardship are evident.
Goal 10: Durable, low maintenance
materials have been used.
Blank concrete walls face
the Bookstore across East
Quad walk.
An essentially introverted
set of buildings, Social
Sciences and Humanities
ironically shun their
surroundings, making no
attempt to relate to them.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Young Hall
Between the Social Sciences and
Humanities complex and the frameand-shingle enclave of North, South
and Dutton halls is Young Hall (1940).
This is one of the campus’ ‘background
buildings’; its architecture unremarkable
and its function in this location one of
providing a neutral buffer between two
widely contrasting architectures. Young
Hall uses concrete, steel and glass in a
style derivative of Bauhaus models in an
unfussy manner that fits easily into the
eclecticism of the campus. The proportions of the wall and window units are in
scale with the older residence halls to the
south, although quite different in form,
materials and detailing.
Goal 1: Generous, shady porches and large
shaded windows make this a comfortable
building for people to use.
Goal 2: Young Hall predates the buildings it
separates, yet its scale unites them well.
Goal 3: Like many buildings of its era, this
is not particularly adaptable to change.
Goal 4: The landscape has matured around
the building.
Goal 5: Deep overhangs and open porches
respond well to the climate.
Goal 6: Young Hall did not anticipate
growth.
Goal 7: The scale of the building is compatible with neighborhood buildings across A
Street.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: A suitable selection of 1940s
materials.
Sited between Memorial Union to
the west and a residential neighborhood to the east, Young Hall
differs from both architecturally,
yet achieves a graceful transition.
25
Voorhies
South of Young Hall and east of South
Hall and the Cross Cultural Center is
a later development of the architectural
style manifest in Young Hall. Voorhies
Hall (1959) is a three story academic
office building with a massive curved
circulation tower at its west end. Here
are the first signs of the brutalist forms
that were to dominate so much architecture at UC Davis as elsewhere during the
following two decades. While it presents
a rather bland and inactive east face to
the neighborhood, other views of the
building are fragmented by mature trees.
These neutralize any tendency Voorhies
might otherwise have to overwhelm its
shingled neighbors.
Goal 1: Voorhies Hall completely fills
the available space, with little thought
for campus life. While spaces within are
adequate, they are not friendly.
Goal 2: This building shows no regard for
the scale, quality or character of its neighbors.
Goal 3: Volumes within are large, and so
to some degree flexible, but externally, there
is no apparent anticipation of a need to
change.
Goal 4: Little or no regard is paid to open
space or landscape.
Goal 5: Deep set windows on the south
elevation and perforated screens on the west
strictly control sunlight.
Goal 6: There is no anticipation of growth
or infill.
26
Without the foil provided by numerous trees, the
massive forms of Voorhies Hall would overwhelm its
modest neighbors.
The Cross Cultural Center was built as
a residence. A comfortable neighbor to
South Hall, it helps to mask the massive
circulation tower of Voorhies Hall.
Goal 7: No concession is made to neighborhood buildings across A Street.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable building materials have
been used.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Voorhies offers a prospect of blank concrete walls.
27
Olson
Olson Hall, although occupying a
corner that overlooks the central Quad,
relates more closely to Sproul Hall and
the Art and Music complex. Olson Hall
(1963) is a substantial building, yet
seems modest beside the massive library.
The exterior of Olsen is made up of
precast concrete panels and columns,
with windows hidden behind precast
concrete sun-screens (brises soleil). This
is an introverted building that gives no
glimpse of activity within. The architecture responds to its surroundings
only in the scale and rhythm provided
by its colonnades. The colonnades
and roof overhangs create contrasting
lit and shadowed surfaces under the
strong sunlight, otherwise there is no
articulation of the rectangular box. The
service entrance faces unapologetically
onto Hutchison Drive — now thankfully screened by a tree-lined avenue.
The building is set so far back from
both Hutchison Drive and from Shields
Avenue that it has little presence on
either. The building defines busy walkways to east and west, but has become a
neutral presence from the streets.
Goal 1: Many people walk by Olsen Hall
because of its location on the campus, but it
cannot be described as a hospitable building, except at the wide entrance at Shields
Avenue.
28
The west facade of Olsen Hall defines a
busy walkway east of the Library, but has
little presence on the streets to the north
and south.
Goal 2: This is a stand-alone building that
is unconcerned by the scale, quality or character of nearby buildings.
Goal 3: As a finite, set piece ‘pavilion’ building, Olsen Hall is not amenable to change.
Goal 4: Olsen is centered in a clear, paved
space. Landscape is external and unrelated.
Goal 5: Windows set back behind pilasters
on the west elevation would control sunlight
if the trees did not do so.
Goal 6: Olsen Hall is not readily expandable.
Goal 7: Architecture unrelated to the neighborhood that is not immediately adjacent.
Goal 8: Preceded the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Olsen Hall is built with durable
materials.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Wickson
Wellman and Wickson halls complete
the community of buildings around the
central Quad. Wickson Hall (1959) was
one of a series of buildings undertaken
in 1958 that included Hoagland,
Voorhies, Robbins, and an addition
to the Hickey Gym. Wickson is a
three-story building that was designed
to house the horticultural departments. The structure of the building is
expressed in column-like concrete walls
between framed and glazed panels on
all three levels along the north elevation,
which is viewed through a screen of
shade trees. The building was remodeled
and expanded in 1973. Immediately to
the west of it is the enology building, a
modest stucco building with shallowpitched tiled roofs and a signature tower.
Behind it are Kerr Hall (1969), a slim
six-story faculty office building with
a red brick facing, and Wellman Hall,
also faced in red brick.
Goal 1: Wickson Hall makes few concessions to people’s needs outside the program.
However, low walls and shade trees around
the building attract frequent use.
Goal 2: The blank walls facing east and
west are out of scale with nearby buildings.
Goal 3: The building was expanded in
1973.
Goal 4: Shade trees planted close to the
building soften its appearance.
Goal 5: Shelves over windows shade them
from high sun.
The tower of the Enology building is a
stylish and playful addition to the west end
of Wickson Hall.
Curiously, the north elevation of Wickson
Hall is equipped with shade shelves over
each window and shade trees close to the
building.
Goal 6: Wickson Hall was oriented to
related to existing buildings, when buildable
land was in plentiful supply.
Goal 7: Not near the campus boundary.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable materials available in the
1950s were used.
29
Wellman
Wellman Hall (1969) is located between
Wickson and Hart halls, overlooking
the west side of the Quad. Two tiers of
verandahs face towards the Quad, but
are scarcely evident as part of the Quad
frontage because the red brick building
is set so far back. On the west side of
the building, it rises three stories from
a sunken plaza, shared with Kerr Hall,
Robbins Hall and its annex. The prevailing impression of the architecture of
Wellman Hall is of two deep and shady
verandahs, and of red brick walls.
Goal 1: The verandahs facing east onto
the main quad are usually thronged with
students. A place to see and be seen.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character
of Wellman Hall differ markedly from its
older neighbors to the south, but fit with the
Memorial Union’s grander scale to the east.
Goal 3: This is not a readily expandable
building, but its generous floor-to-floor
heights accommodate interior change and
system upgrades.
Goal 4: Although set well back from it,
Wellman Hall is oriented towards the great
open space of the main quad. The west elevation overlooks a more moderately scaled and
carefully modeled open space.
Goal 5: The wide overheads and deep verandahs provide shade and admit breezes. The
interior of the building benefits marginally
from these with its high ceilings.
Goal 6: The building site is constrained,
and the square footprint makes expansion
difficult if rooms are to be daylit.
30
Open verandas offer
welcome relief to the
warren of classrooms
within Wellman Hall.
The west side of Wellman Hall overlooks a quiet, sunken plaza.
Goal 7: Not applicable.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Materials are durable and have
become appropriate to their surroundings
with subsequent construction nearby.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Hickey Gymnasium
Located north of North Quad adjacent
to Toomey and A Street fields, Hickey
Gymnasium was built in two phases.
Phase one, completed in 1938, was of
board-formed, exposed cast-in-place
concrete in a ‘Moderne’ architectural
style. The main roof is flat with
parapets, but secondary pitched roofs of
red clay tile, reminiscent of Walker and
Hart halls distinguish the entrances.
An addition was built on the east side of
the swimming pool in 1963 in a similar
style. Large blank walls facing south
towards North Quad are now clothed by
Boston Ivy, which softens the appearance
of such a large unbroken surface.
Goal 1: Like most gymnasiums, Hickey is a
large volume with few windows and little
space for socializing outside. It accommodates
activities within, but not outside.
Goal 2: Hickey Gymnasium followed the
stylistic example of Walker and Hart Halls,
but predates most other buildings nearby.
Goal 3: A large volume space is more adaptable than most to change. Smaller auxiliary
spaces are less so.
Goal 4: Perception of the massiveness of
the structure is reduced by varied perimeter
plantings, and especially by the ivy that
clothes the south elevation.
Goal 5: No particular response to climate is
evident except the Mediterranean tile roofs.
Goal 6: This was a pioneer building on a
large open space.
Goal 7: Distant from campus boundaries.
The mass of Hickey Gymnasium is
tempered by its setback from North Quad
and by the trees and vines that clothe it.
The 1963 addition to the gymnasium
faces west onto the North Gate Entry.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: The original building used
standard contemporary materials; the 1963
extension is of reinforced concrete.
31
Hunt
East of Hickey Gym and Howard Way
is Hunt Hall (1949). This two-story
academic building houses Agronomy and
Range Sciences, and includes a 200-seat
auditorium. The exterior architecture
has the clean simplicity reminiscent of
post-war Scandinavian buildings, with
continuous masonry walls and regularly
spaced and shallowly inset metal windows. A full height window wall, rising
from floor to eaves projection, signals the
main entrance. The architecture of Hunt
Hall is notable because of its departure
from heavy concrete walls and balconies
with continuous or ganged windows.
Goal 1: Hunt Hall is a utilitarian building
that makes no concessions to socializing
students or faculty.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character of
the building are dictated more by the taste
of the era in which it was designed than the
architecture of other campus buildings.
Goal 3: Some expandability.
Goal 4: Relationships to landscape and open
space are unremarkable.
Goal 5: Minimal response to climate.
Goal 6: No anticipation of continued
growth is evident.
Goal 7: Distant from the local neighborhood.
Goal 8: Preceded the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable materials were used.
32
Hunt Hall responds minimally to the Californian climate with flush windows.
The long, unbroken eaves line is out of character with most of the other
campus buildings.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Veihmeyer
East of Hunt Hall, and across the street
(North Quad) from Wickson Hall, is
Veihmeyer Hall (1949). Like its neighbor to the east, Veihmeyer is a two-story
masonry building with projecting eaves
and regularly spaced pierced window
openings. At the southwest corner, a
loggia-like portico protects the main
building entrance.
Goal 1: The generous entrance loggia offers a
shady and cool place for people to congregate.
Goal 2: More attuned to established campus
architecture than neighboring Hunt Hall or
later Wickson Hall.
Goal 3: Reasonably flexible.
Goal 4: The building addresses its site at the
corner of two landscaped streets with some
care, observing established setbacks.
Goal 5: The deep eaves and open entrance
loggia respond to the sunny climate.
Goal 6: Veihmeyer made economical use of
its site, anticipating growth.
Goal 7: Distant from nearby neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable materials were used.
Veihmeyer Hall has a south elevation
more deeply modeled than its neighbor to
the east. A shady porch creates a place to
socialize at the main entrance.
33
Plant and Environmental
Science Facility
Immediately north of Veihmeyer, and
visible between it and Hunt Hall is the
new Plant and Environmental Science
Center (2002). This building develops
the aesthetic of continuous masonry
walls, pierced windows and overhanging
eaves to suit a larger and technically
more complex building than its neighbor. The windows are set more deeply
than in neighboring buildings to protect
the glass from solar gain. Also, ground
floor windows in this three-story building are enlarged to improve natural
lighting and visual access. Full height
porticos with projecting eaves for shade
protect entrances and provide places to
linger and talk. The exterior walls are
pre-cast concrete panels that distinguish
34
window reveals by color and by raising
them slightly from the wall plane. A
tiling pattern is also expressed, reducing
the apparent mass of the wall surfaces to
a scale consistent with the architecture
and the buildings occupants.
Goal 1: Sheltered gathering places are
provided at each entrance.
Goal 2: Materials differ from neighboring
buildings, but architectural scale and quality
are compatible.
Goal 3: The building design anticipates the
need to replace some building systems in the
future.
Goal 4: Open spaces and plantings have
been designed to complement the building
and its neighbor, Veihmeyer Hall.
Goal 5: Deep set windows and shaded
porticos respond to the sunny climate.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 6: This is an infill building that leaves
little room for expansion.
Goal 7: Distant from campus boundaries.
Goal 8: Consistent with the current Long
Range Development Plan.
Goal 9: Sustainable design and energyefficient systems were employed. Large trees
were saved and the building infills a
remnant site.
Goal 10: Building materials were selected
for their durability and low maintenance.
Configured for community, the Plant
and Environmental Sciences building is
formed around an open courtyard, with
large windows establishing a connection
to activities within the building.
35
CENTRAL CAMPUS - THE STORER MALL DISTRICT
STORER
TERCERO
QUAD
SILO
SOUTH ENTRY
36
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Cruess Hall
East of the new Plant and Environmental
Science Center, across California Avenue,
is Cruess Hall (1952). This two-story
building for the Department of Food
Science and Technology is built of concrete and glass, and has precast concrete
coffers around its window openings for
solar control. This mask has the effect of
imposing an artificial and massive scale
on the building. The architecture of the
building beneath the mask is revealed
at the main entrance, where a crisp
geometry of square windows that light a
double height entry hall wrap the northeast corner of the building adjacent to the
entrance. This building has a suburban
quality to it, the architecture belonging
more comfortably in a business park than
on a campus thronged with students.
With the exception of the entrance
corner, Cruess is not an inviting building.
A more sensitive solution to solar control
could make it so.
Goal 1: The open space on the south side of
Cruess Hall provides a quiet outdoor retreat,
but otherwise the building does not accommodate social gathering.
Goal 2: The scale and character of Cruess
Hall are out of step with the campus, recalling a suburban business park.
Goal 3: A moderately flexible building.
Goal 4: The building is isolated from
California Avenue by dense shrubberies.
These serve to hide the building, not to
benefit its occupants.
Except at the
northeast corner
entrance, Cruess
Hall is removed
from congress with
campus life by a
dense landscape
and by an architectural treatment that
masks all activity
within.
Goal 5: The architecture is effective in
eliminating strong sun, but takes no advantage of other aspects of the climate.
Goal 6: Future growth and infill were
evidently not priorities when Cruess Hall
was designed.
Goal 7: This is an introverted architecture,
unconcerned by the appearance of its
neighbor.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Currently available durable
materials were used.
37
Hoagland
South of Cruess Hall is a wide
landscaped space, and beyond it is
Hoagland Hall (1959), occupied by
classrooms, laboratories and offices of
the Departments of Land, Air and Water
Resources. This two-story building
presents a different architecture in different directions, which makes sense in
terms of solar gain and views. Massive,
continuous concrete walls with deeply
recessed strip windows dominate the
north elevation. Secondary elevations
have curtain walls between massive castin-place concrete cross walls. Views onto
the broad, wooded walk to the north
are obliterated by solid masonry balcony
walls, which, from the walkway, obscure
all signs of life within the building. The
south side of Hoagland is the place where
people choose to linger, because of the
more accommodating scale of the architecture and open spaces, and because of
the shade provided by mature trees.
Goal 1: From the north and west, Hoagland
Hall appears as an unoccupied bunker. The
south side is more open, and shows human
activity.
Goal 2: No regard is given to earlier
precedents for architectural scale, quality or
character.
Goal 3: As is evident from equipment added
to the exterior of the building, it was not built
with the ability to accept changes over time.
38
Heavy balconies overlook the wooded walk to the
north of Hoagland Hall. An inflexible architecture results
in unsightly equipment additions on the exterior.
Goal 4: Potential relationships to the broad
wooded walk to the north have been denied
by massive, impersonal walls.
Goal 5: Hoagland Hall appears to be oriented back-to-front where solar control
is concerned.
Goal 6: No evident anticipation of
continuing growth.
Goal 7: Hoagland Hall is remote from
campus edges.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Reasonably durable materials
were used.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Asmundson Hall
Southeast of Hoagland, fronting
California Avenue, is two-story
Asmundson Hall (1954), a research
and teaching facility. This building
has double height pilasters expressing
the structural grid, with the spaces
between them filled by large, nine-pane
windows and concrete spandrel panels.
Eaves project in the manner of Hunt
and Veihmeyer halls, which preceded
Asmundson Hall by five years.
Goal 1: Asmundson Hall is set back and
somewhat isolated from California Avenue
and other places frequented by people. There
is no encouragement of congregation or
informal meeting.
Goal 2: The building is consistent with
its near contemporaries but not with older
valued precedents.
Goal 3: There is no evident anticipation
of change.
Goal 4: Adjacent open spaces are used to
isolate Asmundson Hall rather than engage
it in campus life.
Goal 5: Apart from overhanging eaves, there
is little response in the architecture to climate.
Goal 6: No anticipation of continued
growth apparent in the siting or
configuration of the building.
Goal 7: Remote from campus boundaries.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Reasonably durable materials
were used.
Asmundson Hall is set back
from California Avenue to
allow the distinctive avenue
of trees room to develop full
canopies.
39
Hutchison, Storer, Mann, & Kleiber
Forming a group with Hoagland and
Amundson halls are Hutchison, Storer and
Kleiber halls and to the west of them, the
Mann Laboratory, Briggs Hall and the new
Life Sciences building. Hutchison (1963)
is a five-story classroom, laboratory, office
and support building for the departments of
Nematology, Microbiology, Plant Pathology,
CEPRAP and Advanced Instrumentation.
Each floor has a balcony projecting out
from the south façade, providing solar protection to the story below. A deep overhang
at the eaves protects the top-story windows.
Storer Hall (1968) houses the departments
of Evolution and Ecology, and the Center
for Population Biology. At six stories, it is
among the taller structures on campus.
Elevations express a concrete frame structure, in-filled with precast concrete panels
and metal-framed windows. Above each
window is a horizontal light shelf that
bounces daylight onto the ceilings inside.
The shelves shade the windows effectively
without adding massive scale to the building, as the Cruess Hall solution does. The
south entrance to Storer Hall is marked by
a great oak tree, creating a popular shady
place for students to study and socialize.
Kleiber Hall (1971) is a small, single-story
lecture hall with massive concrete walls
that are largely imperforate except for the
recessed window wall at the entrance. The
Mann Laboratory (1965) is also single story
building of unremarkable architecture.
40
Klieber Hall Drive gives access to the
north side of Klieber, Storer, and Hutchison halls.
Goal 1: The south entrance to Storer Hall
is made popular by its large, well placed tree
- the only sociable place to be found among
these four buildings.
Goal 2: None of these buildings follows
the example of the older and more valued
buildings on campus, but they do fit with the
post-WWII buildings to the north.
Goal 3: Ability to accept change not investigated.
Goal 4: Relationships between those buildings, open space and landscape are minimal.
Goal 5: All use deep eaves for sun protection.
Storer also uses light-reflecting shelves to
project filtered sunlight deep into the rooms
to give superior daylighting.
Goal 6: Neither siting nor orientation of the
four buildings suggest anticipation of growth.
Goal 7: These buildings are distant from
campus boundaries.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable materials were used.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Light shelves on Storer Hall
The south entrance to Storer Hall is made
accommodating by a huge, shady tree.
The tree provides outdoor comfort that
the building addresses only with a minimal
porch.
Klieber Hall, with a style and scale of its
own, forms a transition between Storer
Hall and Briggs Hall.
The south entry to Hutchison Hall is
less welcoming than its neighbor, mainly
because paving prevents shade tree
planting.
Balconies on the south elevation of
Hutchison Hall shade the windows below.
Trees partially screen the service yard for
Haring Hall to the south.
The Mann Laboratory
41
Briggs and Life Sciences
The sub-group of science buildings
forming the western extremity of the
central campus relates to its immediate neighbors to the east, Kleiber and
Haring halls. Briggs Hall (1971) was
expanded in 1997, and houses teaching facilities and research laboratories
for the departments of Molecular
and Cellular Biology, Neurobiology,
Physiology & Behavior, Entomology,
and the Biotechnology Programs Office.
Briggs is a large, three-story building,
configured as a number of connecting
wings. The building is predominantly
of cast-in-place concrete with massive
circulation towers, and deeply modeled
concrete window units ranged in three
tiers along each façade between the
towers. The strong Californian sunlight
casts deep shadows in and under the
window units, creating a crisply articulated effect. The architecture of Briggs
is most closely affiliated to that of the
science buildings in the Silo district. The
Life Sciences forms a courtyard against
the southwest wing of Briggs Hall.
42
new Life Sciences building (2000) forms
an open courtyard with the southwest
wings of Briggs Hall, with its own entry
from the southwest. Flat masonry walls
rise four stories inside the courtyard.
They are perforated by raised, precast
window openings with recessed glazing, and subdivided by deep mullions
and transoms to reduce solar gain. The
wall surface is reduced in scale using a
tiling pattern. Color distinguishes the
window units from the wall surface.
Laboratory chimney stacks are grouped
and screened by pitched roof elements
reminiscent of the roof-forms and colors
of Hart and Walker halls.
Briggs Hall is distinguished
by the rhythm and contrast of
deeply shaded windows and
strongly modeled concrete. It
has an assertive architecture
redolent of its era.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 1: Briggs Hall acknowledges social
needs at its monumental entrances, but is
otherwise introverted. The Life Sciences
building wraps around a courtyard to the
south and west to create an outdoor place for
both instruction and social gatherings.
Goal 2: In 1971, Briggs Hall brought an
entirely new architectural aesthetic to the
campus, thereby setting a different context
for academic buildings at the western
extremity of the core campus. The 1997
expansion and the adjoining Life Sciences
building have respected this context, while
tempering the architectural character to
respond to values reflected in these design
guidelines. A red pitched roof reminiscent
of Walker and Hart Halls hides mechanical
equipment on the roof.
Goal 3: The more recent buildings have
been designed with sufficient space to accommodate supplements to, and eventual replacement of mechanical and electrical systems.
Goal 4: The landscaped open space between
the buildings extends their activities out of
doors, while bringing the lush landscape of
the campus into their midst.
Goal 5: Fenestration is carefully protected
in both buildings against solar gain, while
engaging natural lighting.
Goal 6: On plan, the buildings appear as
a series of connected beads, with room for
additional connected buildings to the north
and west.
Goal 7: The original Briggs Hall departed
radically from architectural precedent.
Subsequent buildings attached to it have
followed this recent precedent, but have
tempered what was an extreme departure
to humanize the outdoor environmental
appearance of the buildings.
Goal 8: Predates the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: The Life Sciences building is sited
to use developable land sparingly, and the
building is designed to be energy efficient,
relatively low in maintenance costs.
Goal 10: Both buildings use durable,
low-maintenance materials and finishes.
Pitched red roof forms
screen laboratory flues,
echoing the architecture
of Hart and Walker halls.
43
Haring Hall
Completing the central campus group
of primary buildings in the Storer
district, Haring Hall (1949) is perhaps
the most visible because of its proximity to the Silo, and to the intersection
of California Avenue and Hutchison
Drive. This expansive two-story building has been the home of Veterinary
Medicine since it was built. Its architecture respects nearby Robbins and
Walker halls in scale, but adds its own
civic aesthetic with the formal architecture of its entrances. The bas-relief
panels over the main entrance are indelibly linked to memories of the campus
for many visitors and alumni. Concrete
pilasters subdivide the elevations into
bays that are filled with windows and
masonry panels. Eaves project to shade
the walls from mid-day sun.
Goal 1: For many years Haring Hall was
both closest to the social center of the campus,
yet the westernmost outpost of the central
campus. It has generous entrance halls, but
most socializing moves across Hutchison
Drive to the Silo.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character
of Haring Hall are closely related to those
of Robins and Walker halls, yet a singular
character is expressed at the main eastern
entrance.
Goal 3: Haring Hall has accepted many
changes since its completion in 1949.
Goal 4: Oriented to terminate Shields
Avenue with its main east entrance, Haring
44
Hall left a triangle of open space to the south
which has evolved into a landscape buffer
between this academic building and the bustle
of Hutchison Drive and the Silo to the south.
Goal 5: Little response to climate is evident.
Goal 6: Infill potential remains in completing
the quadrangle to the north, and expansion to
the west.
Goal 7: Haring Hall is visible from the
neighborhood to the east only down the
length of Shields Avenue, which it
terminates admirably.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Building materials
are reasonably durable.
The bas-relief panels over the east
entrance to Haring Hall are conspicuous
as a landmark at the intersection of
California Avenue and Hutchison Drive.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
CENTRAL CAMPUS - THE SILO DISTRICT
QUAD
STORER
SILO
TERCERO
HEALTH
SCIENCES
SOUTH ENTRY
45
The Silo
Many ascribe iconic significance to the
Silo, as it symbolizes the agricultural
roots of the University, and evokes fond
memories among alumni. It was among
the first structures completed on what
was then, in 1908, the University Farm.
First used as a dining hall, then as a
dairy barn, it was converted back to student use in 1965. In 1992, additions and
interior renovations provided space for a
fast food court, the Silo Pub restaurant,
and a branch of the UCD Bookstore.
The Silo is now the focus of a development of single story wood shingle buildings around an open courtyard. The
scale and materials of the buildings signify informality and contrast with the
more serious aspect of nearby academic
buildings. Westward expansion of the
46
Silo complex to replace Surge Building
IV is planned as the population of the
campus continues to grow.
Goal 1: Of all the buildings on the campus,
those of the Silo District are most consistently
attuned to the needs of the people who use
them. This is due mostly to their function
and design, but also to their predominately
domestic scale and wood frame architecture.
Goal 2: All take their cue from the scale,
quality and character of the Silo itself: one
of the oldest and most loved structures on
campus.
Goal 3: The Silo complex has demonstrated
its adaptability through a series of different
uses over the past century. Wood frame structures enclosing large volumes have been very
adaptable, though more costly to maintain in
recent years.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 4: The Silo buildings are centered
on their own active open space, and share
longer views into the Sciences Quad to
the southeast.
Goal 5: The high, open ceilings, broad eaves
and openable windows of the older Silo
buildings provide shade and natural ventilation making a crowded building comfortable
at all times.
Goal 6: Recent additions to the Silo group
anticipate westward growth of the complex
to replace the temporary Surge building and
enclose the service yard.
Goal 7: Adherence to wood frame and
shingle architecture of the campus’ oldest
buildings is a conscious exception to other
precedents and in keeping with the Architects
and Engineers building to the west. It is
remote from Davis residential neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Precedes the current Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: A conscious exception has been
made from this goal for the Silo group in
order to retain an important historical
reference to the beginnings of the University.
Wood shingles predominate in the
Silo complex recalling the agricultural
roots of the University, and contrasting
with masonry buildings to the north,
south and east.
47
Architects & Engineers Building
Related to the Silo group by proximity and its agricultural origins is the
wooden barn that now houses the
campus architects and engineers. As
the Silo group is expanded westward,
displacing temporary buildings, the
contribution of this currently isolated
building to the campus will become
more evident. It will also be a prominent feature of the east-west walkway
that will connect north Tercero to the
Chemistry buildings. 2001 renovations
have updated the interior of the barn
while preserving its historic features.
Goal 1: Conversion of this barn to an office
building has maintained an intimate scale
in the spaces and architectural detailing that
makes it a welcoming place to visit.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character are
consistent with the best of the Silo group.
Goal 3: This former barn has undergone
several changes over the years and has bourn
them well.
Goal 4: Located at a transition point between
the Engineering buildings and the Silo group,
this building is oriented both north and
south, its landscape reflecting this. However,
a protected space by the north entrance signals
the proper approach and entry.
Goal 5: Deep eaves, a shallow pitched roof
and sheltered windows suit this building to
the climate.
Goal 6: This building predates all its
neighbors.
48
Goal 7: Distant from the campus boundaries.
Goal 8: The Long Range Development Plan
accommodates this building and the walkway that passes it.
Goal 9: Stewardship and economy are evident in the case with which this building has
been maintained and updated to fit current
space needs.
Goal 10: An exception is made to this goal
on order to preserve the historical integrity of
this early campus building.
This carefully restored barn building is an
apt reminder of the roots of the university.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Hog Barn
Valued as a contemporary of other early
timber buildings in the core campus,
the Hog Barn (1914) is now somewhat
isolated from the Silo group by Bainer
Hall and the Crocker Nuclear Lab. This
two-story ‘stick and shingle’ western
barn was central to a complex of animal
pens and lesser barn buildings, but now
stands in splendid isolation amid the
concrete architecture of the Engineering
buildings.
Goal 1: This barn was designed first
and foremost for the hogs that occupied
it. However, the wood frame and shingle
construction, and the domestic scale of the
main building make it a natural member
of the gregarious silo group, from which it is
now isolated.
Goal 2: The Hog Barn predates all of its
neighbors, but was certainly consistent with
its contemporaries.
Goal 3: The simple wood frame construction
of this building has made it adaptable to
many changes over its long life.
Goal 4: The most significant open spaces
associated with the barn are the abandoned
hog pens and loading chute. These look like a
site awaiting something new.
Goal 5: No particular response to climate
is evident, except in the shade afforded to
the hogs by the wide-eaved neighboring
structure.
Goal 6: The Hog Barn precedes all neighboring structures.
Goal 7: Distant from the campus boundary.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Historic consistency excepts this
building from Goal 10.
The Hog Barn is now largely hidden
behind Academic Surge and the Crocker
Nuclear Lab.
Roessler Hall is the odd-man-out among
the science buildings.
49
Bainer Hall East
Immediately south of the Silo complex
is Bainer Hall, the administrative center
of the College of Engineering. The east
wing of this Janus-like building belongs
to a group around mounded lawns and
oval walkways with chemistry, physics
and geology buildings, with the rather
awkward inclusion of Roessler Hall.
With the exception of Roessler, these
buildings create an ordered campuswithin-a-campus of buildings that are
compatible with one-another in scale
and architecture, united by a carefully
modeled landscape. Separated by trees
and a parking lot from Mrak Hall, the
only direct visual link is to the Silo complex, and north along the alignment of
California Avenue, which continues into
the sciences group as a walkway.
The modeled landscape helps to create a campus-within-a-campus like
atmosphere with the surrounding science buildings. This contemplative
space is on the south side of Bainer Hall East.
50
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 1: The north and east frontages of
Bainer Hall East open onto the mounded
lawns, pathways and shade trees of the sciences open space, making it a popular resort.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character
of the architecture is consistent with that of
the Chemistry and Physics buildings visible
across the open space.
Goal 3: Large volumes in this building are
amenable to change.
Goal 4: The relationship to the sciences open
space referenced above is key to the character
of Bainer East. More intimate, shaded
landscape to the south provides a tranquil
outlook.
Goal 5: Deepset windows provide effective
solar protection.
Goal 6: Together with Bainer West wings,
the complex is as large as its site will allow.
There is little possibility of infill or expansion.
Goal 7: Bainer East fits in well with other
buildings around the sciences open space. All
are remote from residential neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable building materials have
been used.
A carefully modeled landscape unites the
Physics and Chemistry buildings.
Bicycles dominate the space outside the
Physics and Geology building.
51
Bainer Hall West
The west wings of Bainer Hall form
a very different relationship with its
immediate neighbors, Engineering II
and III, and the cluster of temporary
buildings around the Campus Data
Center. The buildings are closely
grouped, and the space between them
is little more than vehicular access
and loading space, although the space
between Bainer and Engineering II has
the appearance of a street, with sidewalk and street trees. The apparently
blind walls on either side of this street,
however, make it an unsympathetic
environment for pedestrians, so its value
as part of the walkway system must be
questioned. The impression made by
this group of buildings is more industrial than campus, fitting, perhaps to
the scale and nature of the engineering
functions accommodated. The west
wings of Bainer enclose a service yard,
with a loading dock along the south
edge fronting Bainer Hall Drive.
Goal 1: Bainer West presents blank walls to
those passing by: windows are high up. The
character is industrial, with no concession
to people beyond the strictly utilitarian
functions of the building.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character
of valued buildings on campus are
completely ignored.
Goal 3: High-bay industrial spaces in
Bainer West are evidently designed with
changing needs in mind.
52
Goal 4: Streetscape between Bainer and
Engineering II has been carefully designed,
but there is no other concession to open space
or landscape.
Goal 5: Clerestory windows are protected
from glare by a deep overhang on the south
elevation.
Goal 6: Together with Bainer East wing, the
complex is as large as its site will allow. There
is little possibility of infill or expansion.
Goal 7: Bainer West is remote from the
campus boundaries.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable building materials have
been used.
Bainer Hall’s southeast
wing has an industrial
appearance, making
Bainer Hall Drive unappealing as a walkway.
The northwest corner of
Engineering III introduces
some human elements to
Bainer Hall Drive.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Academic Surge
An architectural anomaly on the campus,
Academic Surge occupies a visually
isolated spot between Engineering III,
Facilities Services, a parking lot and some
temporary buildings. This is a building
that is unresponsive to considerations
of climate, orientation, scale or campus
character. This two-story tilt-up concrete
building was completed in 1992. The
west façade is clad in tinted glass in
multiple bands that belie the scale of
the building, create glare, and challenge
energy-efficient building operation.
Goal 1: Despite its extensive glazing,
Academic Surge is an introverted building.
The heroically scaled porch is too high to
provide shade to anyone using it, and there
is a lack of places to sit, so people are not
accommodated beyond the functions of the
building interior.
Goal 2: The scale, quality and character of
this building are entirely alien to those of
respected buildings on campus.
Goal 3: Academic Surge should have all of
the flexibility afforded by a speculative office
building, which it resembles in layout and
structure.
Goal 4: Academic Surge appears to ignore its
surroundings.
Goal 5: In many respects, this building is
poorly suited to the climate, exposing large
areas of glass to solar gain, for example.
Goal 6: The dimensions of the plan suggest
that expansion of this building would be
difficult without depriving program space
of daylight.
Academic Surge is an architectural
anomaly on the campus.
Goal 7: Academic Surge is remote from the
campus boundaries.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: The spirit of stewardship is noticeably absent.
Goal 10: Durable building materials have
been used, although maintenance needs are
relatively high.
53
Deep-set windows, especially at ground level, protect the interior from summer sun on the south elevation.
Meyer Hall
Completed in 1987, Meyer Hall is
actually a pair of buildings separated
by a covered courtyard with a retractable roof. The courtyard is in the form
of a shady passage with sky-bridges
linking each of the three stories above.
Externally, the architecture is of massive concrete walls perforated on the
north and south sides by deeply recessed
54
windows. At ground level on the south
façade, window openings are enlarged
and extended to the ground, giving the
building the appearance of a colonnade.
The overall mass of the building is
reduced by dividing it into four staggered sections, the two end sections
stepping in by a full structural bay at the
third and fourth floor levels.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 1: The space between the linked buildings of Meyer Hall are designed to protect
people from the environment, providing
them with a neutral place that is neither
inside nor outside the building. This accommodates both work and social gatherings.
Goal 2: The scale and character of Meyer
Hall is distinct from that of older, respected
buildings on campus. At the southwest corner
of the physical sciences and engineering group,
there were no immediate precedents to follow,
so it established its own aesthetic.
Goal 3: The building is constructed as eight
connected four story blocks, so flexibility is
limited to changes within each.
Goal 4: Unlike many buildings on campus,
Meyer Hall is conceived as a form set on a
lawn with specimen trees dotted across it.
The relationship to open space is quite different from most others.
Goal 5: There are three notable responses to
climate: the shaded court between the building halves, the deepset and shaded windows,
and the thermal mass of the heavy precast
concrete skin of the building.
Goal 6: The linear form of the building
lends itself to expansion, or continuation in
separated structures along the central eastwest axis.
Goal 7: Although at the edge of the central
campus, Meyer Hall is remote from the
nearest residential neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable building materials
have been used.
Filtered daylight fills the mall that separates
the two buildings of Meyer Hall.
55
Mrak Hall
Occupying a commanding position
at the formal entrance to the campus
from the south, and on axis with a
discontinuous pathway that reaches
across the campus from South Entry
to Hunt Hall in the north, Mrak Hall
holds a pivotal position. The architecture is appropriately formal, and
at five stories, it is among the tallest
buildings on campus. The siting and
function of Mrak Hall as the principal
administrative building on campus
make it a singular building, allowing
an architecture that is distinctive and in
no sense a precedent for others. Deeply
overhanging eaves and recessed top and
ground floors acknowledge the need for
shade, but the three intermediate stories
have no architectural protection for the
windows. Trees flank the building to
east and west, isolating it from other
buildings, and partly veiling it from
views across Lake Spafford. Views from
the building are largely filled with trees,
hiding the strong axial relationships
across the campus to the north. Views
to the south are unobstructed as far as
the elevated freeway, with the Center for
the Arts and the Buehler Alumni and
Visitor Center in the foreground. The
only other campus building that is near
Mrak Hall is the architecturally dissimilar King Hall to the southwest, though
this too is shrouded by mature trees.
56
Goal 1: People can be found conversing in
the cool lobby of Mrak Hall, and on the
shady north side of the building. Although
the most formal building on campus, it is
clearly people-oriented.
Goal 2: Mrak Hall is a conscious departure
from traditional architecture of this campus,
occupying a strategic location at the entrance
to the central campus, and commanding the
main north-south campus axis. Its height
and materials assert the authority of this
building.
Goal 3: This is essentially an office building,
with limited capacity for change.
Mrak Hall presides over the formal entry
to the campus from the south.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 4: The principal relationship of Mrak
Hall to the landscape and spaces around it is
through the axis on which it stands. Mature
trees engage it laterally with open lawns and
the arboretum.
Goal 5: The loggias at the ground floor
and the top floor, the extended eaves, and
the deep-set vertically pierced windows all
respond to the climate.
Goal 6: This is a finite, stand alone building
with no expectation of growth.
Goal 7:
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable, high quality building
materials have been used.
From the north, Mrak Hall terminates a formal walkway
from Walker and the Library at Hutchinson Drive.
57
King Hall
The Law School is housed in King
Hall, completed in 1968, just three
years after the School was founded. It
was dedicated to the memory of Martin
Luther King. The concrete frame of this
two-story building is clearly expressed
on the exterior, its brick infill panels set
back behind the structural frame on the
exposed façades to shade the windows
from solar gain. Perforated panels of
precast concrete lighten the appearance
of the second floor balconies, and allow
a suffused light to reflect from balcony
floors. One of the most appealing views
of this building is from Putah Creek east
of the Mrak Hall Drive bridge.
Goal 1: The main entrance to the King law
building is on the shady north side, where
trees soften the landscape.
Goal 2: Being remote from the older
respected buildings on campus, King Hall
was unrestrained in scale, quality and character except for its proximity to Mrak Hall
and Putah Creek.
Goal 3: Change is limited to adaptations
within the concrete envelope of the building.
Goal 4: King Hall relates directly to three very
different kinds of open space: extensive open
lawns to the north, the formal entry drive to the
university to the east, and Putah Creek and an
extension of the arboretum to the south.
Goal 5: The entire building is recessed
behind a two-story concrete logia which
shades walls and windows while admitting
filtered light and breezes.
58
King Hall is designed to control solar
access, but admit a suffused daylight.
In a location that
associates it only
loosely to other
buildings, King
Hall’s most appealing view is from
Putah Creek.
Goal 6: This is a finite, stand alone building
that would be difficult to expand.
Goal 7: The building purposely distinguishes
itself from both neighborhood and campus
architecture nearby.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Durable building materials have
been used.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Everson Hall
East of Chemistry and opening onto
both Hutchison Drive and Mrak Walk
is Everson Hall, completed in 1970. This
two-story concrete and glass building is
an unremarkable background building,
in part because of its architecture, but
mostly because it is set back so far on
both of its frontages and is somewhat lost
among the trees.
Goal 1: While the building does little to
accommodate people, the land between it an
Mrak Walk makes up for it.
Goal 2: The blank walls and variable scales
of this building are offset by its inconspicuous
location among mature trees.
Goal 3: Too much scarce developable land
is occupied by this single story building, so
rather than radical remodeling, eventual
replacement with one or more taller buildings would probably be wise.
Everson Hall occupies a secluded spot on
the west side of Mrak Walk.
Goal 4: Everson Hall is hidden behind the
Chemistry Building, a deep setback from
Hutchison Drive, and a similarly deep
setback from Mrak Walk. The landscape
dominates the architecture.
Goal 5: Some windows are deep-set,
otherwise, little concession to the climate is
evident.
Goal 6: It would be difficult to expand this
sprawling building. Redevelopment to a
higher density might be wiser.
Goal 7: Not visible from residential
neighborhoods
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Reasonably durable building
materials have been used.
59
Art, Music & Wright Hall
Across Mrak Walk from Everson is the
Fine Arts group. All three buildings are
related to one-another by a central open
space on the south side of Hutchison
Drive. Although they back onto the
Arboretum, they are unrelated to it,
having only service access on the south
side. Art is the most prominent of the
trio on Hutchison Drive. It is a threestory concrete frame building with large
windows on its north façade, yet its scale
seems modest by comparison with the
Shields Library across the street. Wright
Hall is distinguished by its colors and
the colonnade that connects it to Music.
From the Arboretum looking north
across Lake Spafford, the red cornice
and blue-gray walls of the fly-tower
make Wright Hall something of a landmark. To the east of Wright is Music, a
modest and undistinguished building
that fits comfortably with its neighbors,
including the old central plant building
to the east. This row forms a comfortable street edge, and is complemented
by the size and form of the street trees
on Hutchison Drive, making a handsome entry to the campus from the east,
despite the bohemian presence of the
old metal sculpture studio.
Goal 1: Between Art and Music, and north
of Wright Hall is a small plaza of a scale
and design that makes it a popular place for
small groups to congregate.
60
Goal 2: The old central plant building sur-
vives from the 1920s attempt to establish a
consistent architectural style for the campus.
To some extent there is a consistency in scale
between the buildings of this group, although
the architecture and character varies widely.
Goal 3: While the north elevations of these
buildings onto Hutchison Drive have little
room to change, the south sides are screened
by big trees in the arboretum, and accessed
only by service drives, so change continues to
occur there.
Goal 4: Though close to the arboretum,
there is no formal connection to it by any of
these buildings. However, each contributes
to the friendly environment provided by the
east end of Hutchison Drive.
Goal 5: Each is so well protected from the
sun by tall trees to the south and west, that
little architectural response was necessary to
the climate, especially in the case of Wright
Hall, where little light is admitted to the
building in any case.
Goal 6: Art has room to grow west, towards
Mrak Walk (or a separate building could be
developed there), while Wright and Music
can grow to the south.
Goal 7: The east end of Hutchison Drive
extends into the adjoining residential neighborhood, and the residential scale there is carried into the campus by the scale of the street,
its trees, and buildings along its south edge.
Goal 8: All predate the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Reasonably durable building
materials have been used.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
From the Arboretum looking north across Lake Spafford, the red cornice and blue-gray
walls of the fly-tower make Wright Hall something of a landmark.
The old central plant building survives
as a little-altered example of the
1920s campus Spanish Mission style.
61
CENTRAL CAMPUS - THE SOUTH ENTRY DISTRICT
QUAD
STORER
SILO
TERCERO
SOUTH ENTRY
62
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Wyatt Pavilion & University
Club Conference Center
Constructed in 1907 as livestock judging
pavilion and all purpose meeting hall,
Wyatt Pavilion is the oldest building
on the campus, and one of the smallest.
This intimate building was relocated in
1964 to a site immediately north of the
University Club Conference Center, and
remodeled as an Elizabethan theatre.
The building is an elongated octagon on
plan, constructed of ‘stick and shingle’.
Its original site was on the southeast
corner of California and Hutchison
Drive. In its new location, Wyatt
Pavilion is almost completely shrouded
with mature redwoods around it.
The University Club Conference Center
wraps around an open court south of the
Wyatt Pavilion, creating its own sense of
place and community within, yet independent from the rest of the campus.
Goal 1: While the Wyatt Pavilion has
become an introverted, windowless
performance space, the conference center is
designed around the behavior of different
groups of people, with closely related indoor
and outdoor spaces.
Goal 2: These two buildings are in a part
of the campus that is isolated from other
buildings, and heavily cloaked with big trees.
The Wyatt Pavilion predates every other
precedent on site for the scale, character and
quality of architecture. The conference center
has selected all three to promote its purpose,
independent of campus precedent.
Wyatt Pavilion is the oldest surviving
structure on the campus, dating from
1907. It is obscured from view by mature
redwoods.
Goal 3: Both buildings enclose large spaces
that are adaptable to many purposes.
Goal 4: The University club extends an open,
glazed façade across open lawns to the west,
and commands a paved courtyard to the
north, in both cases providing opportunities
for building activities to extend out of doors.
Wyatt Pavilion is almost completely hidden by
the dense cocoon of trees that surround it.
Goal 5: Loggias and wide, overhanging
eaves fit the University club building to the
climate. Once a self-ventilating agricultural
building, Wyatt Pavilion has little but its
reflective roof to fit it to the climate today.
63
Goal 6: As a regular polygon in plan,
Wyatt Pavilion has few options to expand.
The University Club, however, could add
a third side to its courtyard if expansion
were ever necessary.
Goal 7: Though close to Soland Park, the
buildings are well screened by mature trees.
Goal 8: All predate the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Wood has been used for consistency
with the historic structure of Wyatt Hall,
and because its softness suits the functions of
the University Club building.
64
The University Club
Conference Center
shares a wooded
location with the Wyatt
Pavilion Theatre.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Buehler Alumni & Visitors Center
The Buehler Alumni & Visitors Center
provides a central reception facility with
services for campus visitors. Strategically
placed at the south entrance to the
campus on Mrak Hall Drive, it is the
first of a series of new facilities to be built
south of Putah Creek. Freed by distance
and visibility from the architectural
parameters of the central campus, this
building makes a notable departure into
the post-modernist world of the 1990s.
Terracotta colored banding wraps the
walls and columns of the exterior,
binding together a variety of concrete,
stucco and split-block materials. A
mannered temple form crowns the
roof, with a south-facing tripartite portico
above the main entrance loggia.
Goal 1: Unlike almost every other building
on the campus, the Buehler Center has
been designed to be approached by car.
Consequently, the side of it that faces towards
the campus center is inaccessible. The south
side has a welcoming and spacious entrance
plaza, which encourages social interchange,
once one has parked and left the vehicle.
Goal 2: The Buehler Center takes no
cue from the scale, quality or character of
respected buildings on campus. Separated
from them by Old Davis Road, it anticipates
an entirely new approach to design at the
South Entry to the campus.
Goal 3: This is a facility designed for a specific set of functions, but has a certain inherent flexibility in the use of the larger spaces.
The Buehler Alumni & Visitor
Center, as the first public building in South Entry, made a complete departure from the architecture, materials and colors of
earlier buildings on campus.
Goal 4: Other than the entry plaza, the
strongest relationship is to the parking lot
immediately south of the building.
Goal 5: The high entry plaza captures air
movements and provides some shade for
people beneath it and the building behind it.
Windows in the central tower are deep-set to
protect glazing from direct sun.
Goal 6: The building was sited away from
others, with room to expand.
Goal 7: The Center is not visible from
nearby residential neighborhoods.
Goal 8: The design of the Buehler Center
predates the Long Range Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable.
Goal 10: Split faced concrete block and stucco
predominate as exterior finish materials.
65
Center for the Performing Arts
A recurrent problem with performing
arts buildings is the large volumes and
blank walls that their internal functions
generate. At UC Davis, a site has been
selected that is independent of the architecture and scalar norms of the central
campus, in which the volumes of the
building are consistent with an adjacent
parking garage, and with the nearby
freeway. Thus the monumental south
and west walls clad in sandstone are
seen in the context of the larger landscape that contains the campus. The
color of the golden sandstone varies,
softening the mass, without detracting
66
from a clear statement as a point of
entry to the campus.
To the east and north, the scale steps
down to meet that of the campus, forming small courtyards with lesser building
volumes, housing offices, studio theatre
and a student entry off an extension to
an arboretum trail.
A high trellis roof shades the open entry
porch facing east onto Mrak Hall Drive.
This roof keeps sun off the clear glass
wall of the lobby, which at night glows
like a massive and inviting lantern.
There is shade too for people who congregate outside the foyer.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Goal 1: Popular activity outside a performing arts center is concentrated around the
box offices and main entrance. Here, these
have been gathered under a high shade roof
on a plaza fronting the main approach on
Mrak Hall Drive.
Goal 2: The scale of a performing arts
center, especially of its large imperforate
walls, makes it difficult to fit into an
established campus. The location south of
Old Davis Road selected for this facility
minimizes those problems. An independent
scale and architecture has been established
between the Mondavi Performing Arts
Center, the south entry parking structure
and the Buehler Center in this separate
enclave south of Putah Creek.
Goal 3: Within the large volume of the
performing arts building, there is room for
considerable adaptation over time.
Goal 4: The only relationships of importance
to outdoor spaces are to the entry plaza and
to Mrak Drive on which the plaza fronts.
Goal 5: The high shade roof over the plaza
and the screened windows at the south end of
the foyer are direct responses to the climate.
Goal 6: There is expansion space to the west
of the building.
Goal 7: The Center is visible from the
highway, but is distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: The siting of the Mondavi
Performing Arts Center is consistent the
Long Range Development Plan.
Goal 9: The Center is designed within
sustainability parameters
Goal 10: Quality materials and finishes
have been used, with minimal maintenance
a high priority.
A high, open canopy floats above the
entrance to the Mondavi Center for the
Performing Arts. Fronting onto Mrak Hall
Drive, the building respects the northsouth axis centered on Mrak Hall.
67
South Entry Parking Structure
Featuring the same variegated golden
sandstone as the Performing Arts Center,
the South Entry Parking Structure is
directly south of it across New Davis
Road. A monumental stairway leads
from the top deck to Mrak Hall Drive,
giving direct access to the Performing
Arts Center, and a one-block walk from
the Buehler Alumni and Visitors Center.
An elevator tower, also clad in sandstone,
marks the northeast corner of the garage,
forming a pleasing composition with the
stairway. The east elevation of the garage
is open to allow natural ventilation, but
is barely visible from Mrak Hall Drive,
being set back behind a formal garden
of Mediterranean cypress trees ranged
in tidy ranks across a hardscape of gravel
and paving.
Goal 1: Both a foil and a complement to
the Performing Arts Center, a monumental
stair at the northeast corner of the parking
structure leads pedestrians to the entry plaza
of the Performing Arts Center.
Goal 2: The scale and style is that of the new
south entry district described above.
Goal 3: The parking structure could be
expanded upwards, or duplicated nearby.
Goal 4: A formal plantation along the east
frontage of the garage celebrates Mrak
Drive, and masks the scale of the structure.
Goal 5: Open ventilation of the garage is
achieved without exposing vehicles to view
by use of ranks of cypress trees along the east
façade. Overhead screens shade patrons
awaiting elevators.
68
Goal 6: Infill growth is not anticipated,
although parts of the structure could be
adapted for other uses.
Goal 7: Distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: The siting of the parking garage
is consistent the Long Range Development
Plan.
Goal 9: The parking structure is designed
within sustainability parameters
Goal 10: Quality materials and finishes
have been used, with minimal maintenance
a high priority.
From the east, the architecture of the parking structure fades to neutrality behind a
formal garden of Italian cypress trees.
Only a stairway and elevator tower signal
the presence of the parking garage south of
the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
THE HEALTH SCIENCES DISTRICT
TERCERO
HEALTH SCIENCES
SOUTH ENTRY
69
Tupper Hall
Designed in the fortress style of the mid
1970s, Tupper Hall (1977) consists of
triple tiers of concrete balconies supported between massive and imperforate
concrete service towers. The balconies
screen deep-set strip windows. The
effect of so much ribbed concrete is
softened somewhat by planters around
the base of the east side (main entry) of
the building, and by lawns to the north
and south. Servicing is accommodated
in a large, unscreened yard on the west
side of the building. Originally built in
isolation, Tupper Hall is soon to
become part of a community of health
sciences buildings.
Goal 1: Exterior spaces around Tupper Hall
do not encourage people to linger. They accumulate instead between the medical science
buildings, where spaces are more welcoming.
Goal 2: Born of the 1970s neo-brutalist
movement, the architect evidently found no
reason to follow campus precedent in scale or
character.
Goal 3: Flexibility is limited to the stacks
of spaces formed within the building, and is
therefore limited.
Goal 4: Landscaping has been used liberally to offset the stark and rugged concrete
surfaces of the building. Changes in grade
introduce lower outdoor spaces. The service
yard on the west side is entirely unscreened,
and detracts materially from the appearance
of the whole.
70
Tupper Hall faces towards a
group of single story medical
health science buildings to
the east.
Goal 5: The deep overhangs above each
window exclude direct solar access, and the
thermal mass of the concrete tempers temperature changes within the building.
Goal 6: Tupper Hall is a set piece building
without any obvious way to expand it short
of building a detached companion structure.
Goal 7: Distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable
Goal 10: Durable materials have been used.
The rugged concrete of Tupper
Hall is softened by generous
landscaping.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Medical Sciences Buildings
The three single story buildings grouped
to the east of Tupper Hall are of an
undistinguished architecture, yet the
spaces between and around them
successfully foster a sense of collegiality. This is attributable in part to the
remoteness of the Health Sciences group
from the rest of the campus, but also
to successful landscaping. The buildings are of concrete panel construction
with floor to ceiling windows set deep
beneath a tall, wide fascia, with shallow
pitched roofs above.
Goal 1: The space between these three,
simple, single story buildings is a popular
gathering place. People also find the outer
perimeters of the buildings sociable places.
Goal 2: These buildings have the air of
being temporary, and thus exempt from concerns of permanent architecture. They look
impermanent compared with the massive
Tupper Hall nearby.
Goal 3: Presumably these buildings would
be replaced with more permanent structures
rather than investing in upgrading their
systems.
Goal 4: The scale of surrounding trees is in
fortunate harmony with that of the buildings
themselves. A casual yet positive dialogue
exists between the buildings and the spaces
between and around them.
Goal 5: Large overhangs protect windows
and doors, but otherwise there is no obvious
response to climate in the building design.
Goal 6: Infill would be accomplished by
adding more freestanding building units.
Spaces between the
buildings are shaded
by trees, and are much
used for socializing
and for study.
Bicycles throng the
eastern approaches to
the Medical Science
Buildings.
The trees to the
south and east of the
Medical Sciences
Buildings create a
congenial place for
study and recreation.
Goal 7: Distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Predates the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable
Goal 10: Durable materials have not been
used; these appear to be temporary buildings.
71
Equine Analytical Laboratory
The distinctive roof form and curved
quadrant of the single story Equine
Analytical Laboratory make it something
of a landmark in the west part of the
campus. It uses the ribbed massive concrete of Tupper Hall in a wall flanking
the entrance, which opens onto a paved
yard softened by perimeter landscaping.
Viewed from the north, the building has a
pastoral aspect to it. This is a building of
unusual program that has its own distinct
architecture, yet it is close enough in scale
and materials to complement its utilitarian neighbor, the Veterinary Medical
Diagnostic Laboratory.
Goal 1: Not a place for people; porch space
is minimal, and there is no furniture or
other accommodation that would encourage
lingering.
Goal 2: Unrelated to any other structure on
campus, though stylish in its own way.
Goal 3: Each element of the building
appears purpose built around a specific
function.
Goal 4: A paved area announces the
building entrance, otherwise the high
maintenance landscaping decorates a setback
between the building and the street.
Goal 5: Deep overhangs protect windows,
and massive walls have thermal mass.
Otherwise no special response to climate
is evident.
Goal 6: Expansion would be accomplished
by constructing adjacent structures.
72
The radial sweep of the roof recalls wooden horse barns of the old West.
The scale of the architecture is matched to an intimate
garden yard by the entry.
Goal 7: Distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Beyond the scope of the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable
Goal 10: Durable materials have been used.
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Despite visual references to old agricultural
buildings, the Equine Analytical Laboratory is
distinctive in style. There is little architectural
precedent in this part of the campus, and
the original forms of the building establish an
identity for the place.
73
Veterinary Medical
Diagnostic Laboratory
Private and introverted in character,
the Veterinary Medical Diagnostic
Laboratory gives few clues to its function through the architecture. The
masonry planes of the massive walls are
relieved by incised bands of color. The
whole building is set low into the landscape, giving it a bunker-like quality.
Simple landscaping of trees and groundcover screen the building as is defers to
its showy neighbor to the north.
Goal 1: This is not a place for people apart
from those engaged in serious work. No
accommodation is made for leisurely congress
outside the building.
Goal 2: Massive masonry unrelated to either
the central campus or to the historic agricultural buildings; a utilitarian structure with
quality finishes built to last.
Goal 3: A bunker-like building with
unknown internal arrangements.
Goal 4: Incidental relationship to outdoor
spaces and landscape.
Goal 5: This building creates its own
artificial climate indoors. Deep windows
and high thermal mass materials help in this
climate.
Goal 6: Expansion would be accomplished
by constructing adjacent or adjoining
structures.
Goal 7: Distant from residential neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Beyond the scope of the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable
Goal 10: Durable materials have been used.
The Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory is larger than the
adjoining Equine Analytical
Lab, and understated
architecturally. It uses good
finishes on an unassuming
but functional building.
74
Primary Buildings on the Campus
Veterinary Medical Teaching
Hospital
The Veterinary Medicine Teaching
Hospital is a two story concrete building constructed in the late 1960’s.
Employing the monumental institutional style of Edward Durrell Stone,
the structure consists of solid, mostly
windowless walls and rhythmic vertical
columns cantilevering to a wide sculpted
overhang and a flat roof. The pure rectangular mass sits on an elevated plinth,
immune to expansion and resistant to
contextual relationships.
Goal 1: Solid and often windowless walls
create an unsympathetic environment around
the perimeter of the building. Social spaces are
used out of necessity rather than choice.
Goal 2: Independent of other architecture
on the campus, a somewhat monumental
style was used here to give prominence to an
isolated building.
Goal 3: High spaces and large volumes provide flexibility within the structural grid.
Goal 4: Shade trees around the perimeter of
the building frame outlooks across open land.
Goal 5: Perimeter shade trees are the most
conspicuous response to the climate.
Goal 6: Expansion was achieved by building
a separate structure to the southeast.
Goal 7: Distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Beyond the scope of the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable
Goal 10: Durable materials have been used.
The north entrance to the Veterinary
Medical Teaching Hospital opens onto a
shady, north-facing terrace. Blank walls
and high windows detract from this as an
out-door study area.
Shade trees wrap the perimeter of the
building.
75
Old Horse Barn
Built in 1928, this classic barn was
actually constructed for mules, not
horses. It is of traditional wood frame
construction with a tiled, double gabled
roof with intersecting gables at the
center of each long elevation. A five-foot
high masonry foundation wall functions
as a protective wainscot for the walls.
Pivoting sash windows and sliding wood
doors wrap the exterior of the building,
except under the mid point gables,
where tall, sliding barn doors provide
the principal points of access.
Goal 1: Built so that both the animals and
those tending them would be comfortable in
all weathers.
Goal 2: Designed as a traditional agricultural building, the scale of openings being
determined by their functions.
Goal 3: A large, open, wood framed structure such as this is capable of accepting many
changes in use without major disruption.
Goal 4: The chief open space to which the
barn relates is the paddock and pens.
Goal 5: The building is designed for controllable natural ventilation, and oriented to
benefit from prevailing breezes in the hot
weather.
Goal 6: Expansion was achieved by building
adjacent structures.
Goal 7: Distant from residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 8: Predated the Long Range
Development Plan.
Goal 9: Not applicable
Goal 10: Traditional materials have
been used
Monitors along the sides
of the raised roof provide
for convection cooling in
the summer.
76
The Core Campus District
The Core Campus Dist rict s
77
LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Five use districts overlay the traditional
named districts, the boundaries often
following principal streets. In designating Garden Walks and other connective
features of the campus, master planners
for the Long Range Development
Plan (LRDP) have identified four use
districts clustered around a central core
of functions that serve and represent the
entire University.
A: Campus Commons
The Campus Commons district
(A) encompasses the Quad and the
expanded Silo group. A new walkway
will connect the west entrance of the
Library to the intersection of California
Avenue and Hutchison Drive – arguably
the ‘100% corner’ of the campus. The
original Walker Hall will remain, its
south wings and the temporary buildings to the west will be replaced by the
new walkway and other buildings.
A. Campus Commons
B
E
A
C. Physical Sciences & Engineering
D. Arts & Professional Schools,
Visitor & Regional Amenities
E. Social Sciences and Humanities
A
C
D
78
B. Agricultural & Biological Sciences
The Core Campus District
Included with the Quad open space is
the Memorial Union, Freeborn Hall and
the bookstore to the north; North Hall,
South Hall and Dutton Hall to the east;
and the Shields library to the south.
A
The existing Silo group will be extended
westward, and Surge Buildings I, II and
III will be replaced. Thus the Commons
District will extend from North Quad,
via the Library to Bioletti Way south
of Hutchison Drive. The district will
be intersected by a number of walks
and bicycle boulevards based on, and
expanded from the grid of streets that
preceded later additions to the campus.
B: Agricultural & Biological Sciences
B
Northwest of the Commons District
is the community of buildings that
reaches from Hunt Hall in the north to
Life Sciences in the southwest. Central
to this Agricultural & Biological
Sciences (B) is Storer Mall, which will
be extended as a principal walkway to
connect with the Quad. At its west end,
Storer Mall intersects with a northsouth walkway in front of Briggs that
will be extended south through Serge
I, II and III and past the architects and
engineers barn to the engineering complex and eventually to La Rue Road.
79
C: Physical Sciences & Engineering
South of the Campus Commons district
the Physical Sciences & Engineering
district (C) extends from Bioletti Way
in the west to Mrak Walk in the east
and La Rue Road in the south. Bainer
Hall Drive and its eastward extension to
Mrak Hall will interconnect the various
north-south circulation routes.
C
D: Arts & Professional Schools,
Visitor & Regional Amenities
Mrak Hall Drive extends across Putah
Creek to the Center for the Arts, and
to South Entry Park. These, together
with facilities north and south of Lake
Spafford, form the district of the central
campus with the greatest potential for
new development (D). Undeveloped
sites exist between Mrak Walk and
the Art building, and there are opportunities for development around the
Environmental Horticulture complex
on the south side of the creek.
E: Social Sciences and Humanities
East of the Campus Commons district
and west of A Street is the Social
Sciences and Humanities district (E).
This extends from Olson Hall in the
south to North Quad at A Street. Unlike
any of the other central campus districts,
this one shares a common boundary
with the city of Davis. The surviving
open space east of Dutton Hall is valued
as a green edge of the campus defining it
from downtown Davis.
80
D
E
Architectural Design Guidelines
Architectural Design Guidelines
81
BUILDING SITING & ORIENTATION
Guideline: Recognize established
campus neighborhoods and districts
within the campus and in adjoining
parts of the City of Davis. (Goals 7 & 10)
Commentary: The City of Davis and
the University have grown up together,
and share common boundaries along A
Street and along Russell Blvd., which
continues through the city as Fifth
Street. Early buildings around the Quad
were similar in scale and materials to
residences across A Street, but postWW II buildings on the campus have
departed from this model, and formed
their own distinct districts.
Six separate but adjoining communities
or traditional districts are recognizable
within the central campus: Quad, Storer,
Silo, South Entry, Health Sciences, and
Tercero. The sixth, Tercero, separates
Silo and Health Sciences, but as yet
includes no significant non-residential
buildings. Apart from Tercero, there
are four residential neighborhoods on
campus: Aggie Village Neighborhood
with Solano Park, Segundo with
Orchard Park, Cuarto (across Russell
Blvd from Orchard Park), and the
Recreation & Housing area that includes
the Colleges at La Rue.
82
The seam between campus and city
neighborhood should be respected.
For some districts, a distinctive identity is appropriate.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Significant streets, such as Hutchison
Blvd. and California Ave. generally
define the boundaries between districts, but the activities, buildings and
landscape in each should be designed
to respect features of those of neighboring districts. Views across boundaries
should similarly be respected, to aid orientation, and reinforce the unity of the
campus as a whole. Those same values
should be respected across A Street and
Russell Boulevard, where the campus
adjoins the city.
Within each district, one or more communities may be defined by similar uses
or architecture. Identity within these
groups is strengthened by a stricter
adherence to like architecture and
materials. Two such groups in the Silo
district are the Silo group itself, and the
adjacent chemistry and physics group.
While architecture differs within each
group, an essentially similar design
vocabulary is maintained, giving a cohesive appearance to the whole. While the
east wing of Engineering II and the west
wings of Bainer Hall satisfy this criterion, they fail to address the needs of
the space between them, leaving a sterile
and unfriendly environment that is alien
to the character of the Silo district and
to the campus as a whole. Guidance to
the design of such spaces follows.
Views to adjoining districts within
the campus aid orientation and
add richness.
83
Guideline: Respond to the character
of the compact campus core.
(Goals 2, 3, 4, & 7)
Commentary: The area north of Putah
Creek, east of Bioletti Way, and south of
Hoagland, Plant Sciences, Hunt and the
Hickey Gym is the subject of this guideline. It is an area of intensive and varied
activity in which pressure for building
expansions and infill structures can be
anticipated. Replacement of temporary
buildings west of Silo, west of Walker
and west of Engineering III are obvious
opportunities.
84
Each new structure should be designed
with evolution in mind; the likelihood
that it will be modified or expanded
at some time in its future. The location of each new building on its site
and the placement of entrances and
service access should take account of
this probability without leaving the
structure with the appearance of being
incomplete.
Bainer Hall Drive has been compromised
as an east-west pedestrian route by
massive blank walls.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Site and orient buildings to
respect established axial relationships
to other buildings and to features of the
landscape. Recognize and respond to
opportunities to create additional such
relationships. (Goals 2, 5, 6, 7, & 10)
Commentary: The siting of Dutton
Hall relates its main entrance to the
center of the central quadrangle, which
is a primary point of orientation for
those unfamiliar with the campus. It is
also sited to complement both North
Hall and South Hall, creating intimate
outdoor spaces between them. Careful
siting and orientation have enabled
Dutton Hall to complete an identifiable
group of buildings with a distinctive
sense of place, and to relate them to the
overall arrangement of the campus.
Dutton Hall completes a community of
buildings around usable open space that
relates axially to the central Quad.
Intimate outdoor space is created between
Dutton, North, and South Halls.
85
Guideline: Acknowledge the primacy of
people on foot in the design of buildings
and associated open spaces throughout
the campus. (Goal 1)
Commentary: Vehicular and equipment
needs are important, and must be fully
accommodated. However, they, like the
buildings and other facilities on campus,
exist only to serve the needs of the
people who constitute the University.
This primacy of human activity,
purpose and physical scale should be
evident in the design of buildings and
associated circulation and open spaces.
The metrics of the human frame should
be reflected throughout all buildings
and associated spaces.
Face-to-face meetings and places to congregate are of primary
importance to the function of the University.
86
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Locate service access so
that vehicular routes conflict minimally
with pedestrians and bicycles.
(Goals 1, 3, 8, & 9)
Commentary: While service arrangements for each building have generally
been provided, access to service yards
and entries often conflicts with other
circulation routing. Complete segregation of routes is not achievable in many
instances. However, opportunities
should be sought to group service access
points with those of existing buildings,
where outdoor storage and mechanical plant may also be co-located, and
screened from view.
Some buildings, such as Hoagland
and Hutchison are ambivalent in their
orientation, so that the functions of
‘back’ and ‘front’ are unclear. This
makes segregation of traffic difficult to
achieve. Sometimes infill development
will create such a circumstance – as in
the case of Wickson, whose loading
dock was effectively blocked by the construction of Kerr and Wellman halls.
Separation of service yards from pedestrian access is important. Where possible,
group service functions for several buildings together.
Compromised service access leads to
unsightly improvisations and adds to labor.
87
Guideline: Align buildings with relevant
setback lines, acknowledging street
grids where appropriate. (Goals 2 & 4)
Commentary: An important and valued
feature of the campus is the quality of
its streets, pathways and open spaces.
They depend for their definition on the
buildings that line them and in many
cases, on avenues of mature trees. These
open spaces are most clearly defined
when building frontages adhere to a
consistent and readable line. The effects
of this can be seen at the east end of
Hutchison Drive, where buildings to
the south form a consistent street wall,
but Sproul, and particularly Olson are
set back too far to support definition of
the street. A focal open space shared by
Music, Art and Wright Hall contributes
to the sense of community between all
three buildings. By contrast, the much
larger space across Hutchison Drive
lacks definition by architectural enclosure, and makes no real contribution
to the quality of the environment. This
underlines the importance of identifying the particular relevance of each setback line for each building, sometimes
in more than one direction.
88
Sproul Hall breaks ranks with adjacent
buildings, leaving an ill-defined edge to
the street and an unresolved relationship
between the buildings.
Architectural Design Guidelines
At the east end of Hutchison Drive, buildings
to the south form a consistent street wall
that is complemented by the avenue of trees
lining the street.
89
Guideline: Orient building entrances and
building facades with view corridors.
(Goals 2 & 4)
Commentary: A classic example is the
axial relationship of Mrak Hall with
Mrak Hall Drive, a principal entrance
to the campus. Not only does the building command views of those arriving,
it is also a point of reference from the
north, for views of it along West Quad
from as far away as Hunt Hall remain
partially unobstructed. The wide
visibility of such landmarks is helpful
to visitors in making the campus
understandable.
A lesser example is Haring Hall, whose
distinctive entrance design terminates
westward views along First Street as it
becomes Peter Shields Avenue within
the campus.
Many opportunities exist to relate buildings and spaces to one another in like
manner throughout the campus. For
example, if parking lots to the east and
west of Meyer Hall were developed, it
is hoped that the strong axis established
by Meyer’s internal paseo would be
responded to by new adjacent buildings
with major entries or other features.
A signal opportunity is to connect the
west entrance of the Shields Library to
the Silo by a new axial walkway.
This would displace the south wings
of Walker Hall, leaving the original
building intact.
90
Haring Hall terminates
views west along Peter
Shields Avenue.
The strong axis established
by the paseo in Myer Hall
could link future buildings
to the east and west.
Mrak Hall commands
vistas to the north
and south, making it
an effective landmark
even when glimpsed
between the trees.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Identify potential views from
within proposed buildings, and orient
windows to take full advantage of them.
(Goals 1 & 4)
Commentary: Just as Mrak Hall enjoys
commanding views across the campus
by virtue of its location, orientation
and height, so many other buildings on
campus may have similar, if less grand
views available to them. For the occupants of a building, the views afforded
from each room can be among its most
significant features. In most cases, views
will be to the near or middle distance.
They provide a means of capitalizing
on the finer qualities of the campus,
and reinforcing the sense of collegiality
among campus users.
Taller buildings can capitalize on distant views over the treetops.
91
Guideline: Orient buildings to minimize
solar gain and maximize usable daylight. The type, size and locations of
nearby trees will also influence these.
(Goals 1, 3, 5, 9, & 10)
Commentary: The cooling loads of
buildings can be reduced significantly
by excluding morning and evening
penetration of direct sunlight through
windows. This can be done by appropriate orientation of the building, by location and configuration of windows, and
by external screening, as, for example, is
sometimes provided by existing mature
evergreen trees. However, exclusion of
direct sun should not exclude useful
daylight, nor unduly limit views into
and out of a building.
The needs and opportunities for solar
exclusion, daylighting and view capture
are typically quite different on each
face of a building, and so should be
considered separately. Too often in the
past, architectural formalism has displaced such thinking, creating buildings
that address their surroundings poorly,
increase energy needs unnecessarily, and
deprive occupants of unique views.
92
For many, intimate views of the landscape
close by can give a sense of tranquility.
Strongly directional windows can provide
views and admit natural light, yet exclude
the direct sun.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Buildings should be sited,
oriented and configured to take advantage of natural ventilation opportunities.
(Goals 5, 6, 9, & 10)
Commentary: Natural ventilation
depends on reliable differences in air
pressure. These may be differences from
one side of a building and another due
to prevailing winds, or differences in
temperature that give rise to convection.
A building can use cross-ventilation to
advantage if it is oriented to face prevailing winds during the season in which
cooling loads are greatest. As wind
strikes the building, pressure on the
windward side will increase, and eddies
on the leeward side will cause a drop
in air pressure. Wind pressure can be
increased by the venturi effect of construction by structures or natural features upwind. Reduction of pressure on
the leeward side also increases with the
height of the building, and the distance
from the next building or other obstruction downwind. A passage through
the building connecting upwind and
downwind sides will displace air from
the building, thus relieving the load on
mechanical equipment.
If air intakes on the windward side of the
building are close to irrigated landscape,
then incoming breezes will be cooled
somewhat. Intakes near traffic or other
sources of pollution should be avoided.
Convection or stack cooling depends on
the displacement of warm air by cooler,
denser air. In its simplest form, this is
accomplished by providing an air intake
at ground floor or basement level, and
on air escape at the top of the space, via
an open window or vent.
Porches, verandahs and other outdoor
spaces can similarly benefit from appropriate orientation to make them more
comfortable through natural ventilation.
93
Guideline: Favor defined and recessed
window openings to ameliorate the
apparent scale of walls and limit solar
gain. (Goals 9 & 10)
Commentary: Academic Surge presents
a glass curtain wall to the west, which
is part reflective, part transparent.
Glazing bars visibly subdivide the wall
in a way that disguises stories and other
characteristics. There is no solar protection other than reflective and absorptive
qualities of the glass. Engineering II
does something similar with a panelized
blank wall, while windows are flush and
unprotected. By contrast, the new Plant
Sciences building defines each window
unit architecturally, and recesses the
glass deeply behind the wall surface to
shade it. Splayed sills increase reflected
daylight access into the interior. A
tessellation pattern on the wall surface
further reduces the overall scale of the
surfaces, especially in locations where
there are no windows.
Recessed glass and reflective sills admit
daylight but block direct sun.
Windowless walls contribute to a sterile
outdoor environment.
94
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Limit blank walls at ground
level, to increase visual interest and
to provide oversight of walkways for
safety. (Goals 1, 4, & 7)
Commentary: It should be a clear objective to expose the life of a building
to the outside, to provide views and
daylight for occupants, bearing in mind
the enhanced campus safety to which
this will contribute. The Memorial
Union dining commons has windows
round most of the perimeter that make
tables close to the window comfortable
and attractive - providing surveillance
over nearby circulation areas, and
presenting an interesting prospect for
passers by. The transparency of the
Commons walls serves both the building occupants and passers-by well. By
contrast, Engineering II and the south
wing of Bainer Hall create hostile pedes-
trian environments with blank walls at
ground level, and deny visual access into
or out of the buildings. Sometimes the
functions of a building necessitate an
absence of daylight, but it is generally
possible to plan a building so that such
uses do not occupy outside walls where
people circulate.
Visible activity inside the Commons
makes the space outside feel both
safe and inviting.
95
Guideline: Limit the use of highly
reflective materials. (Goals 9 & 10)
Commentary: Misdirected lights,
especially glare, are irritants in any
environment. In a climate where the sun
is strong and persistent, as at UC Davis,
it is important to avoid large reflective
areas, such as walls of mirrored glass.
Windows that are recessed or otherwise
shaded from direct sun avoid the need
for highly reflective coatings, and will
rarely cause glare. In extreme cases,
reflective building surfaces reflect sufficient heat to damage trees and other
plants. Reflective materials should only
be used to accentuate certain architectural details, and should not be used
over large surfaces.
Academic Surge presents a glass curtain wall to the west. There
is no solar protection other than the reflective surface of the
glass. Glazing bars introduce a scale unrelated to the building’s
purpose or to the architecture of its neighbors.
96
Architectural Design Guidelines
Pierced window openings with deep reveals admit light and avoid glare.
97
BUILDING USES & ACTIVITY
Guideline: Distinguish the use of each
building type by its architecture, yet
relate each type to its neighbors; a
human scale should be common to all.
(Goals 1, 2, 4, & 5)
Commentary: Some buildings, such as
the Social Sciences and Humanities
building, isolate themselves from their
surroundings to assert their own architecture; in this case, one that subjugates
human scale and discourages gregarious
social behavior. Hart Hall, Wellman
and Health Science Group are academic
buildings that acknowledge the importance of creating places for informal
study and socializing. They provide
spaces in which people feel welcome
to linger, in the process enriching the
campus as a place of collective intellectual achievement.
Spacious verandas overlooking the West
Quad provide a respite from classrooms
behind them.
Distinguish the use
of each building type
by its architecture,
yet relate each type
to its neighbors; a
human scale should be
common to all.
98
Architectural Design Guidelines
A quiet court behind Hart Hall invites outdoor study.
While modest as architecture, the HS
Group of buildings encourage collegiate
behavior...
... by contrast, the Humanities Building subjugates
human activity to architectural formalism.
99
Guideline: Address active outdoor
areas, such as walkways, with active
building frontage uses wherever
possible. (Goals 1 & 4)
Commentary: The open verandahs of
North and South halls invite occupants
to occupy them, and as a consequence,
that part of East Quad is an attractive
place to walk, and the quad itself
benefits from an active edge. The
same can be said of the west side of the
library, where a busy entrance, seating,
sun and shade invite people to linger.
By contrast, the north side of the library,
although it faces the Quad, is not an
active space as it lacks an active building
frontage. Buildings that distance themselves from sidewalks and conceal their
activities, such as the Social Sciences
and Humanities Building, create a
sterile environment that actively
discourages gregarious behavior.
The entrance terrace at the Library is a
place to meet people from every discipline.
Inactive building frontages downgrade the
spaces outside as social places.
Open porches allow the occupants to see
and be seen by passers by on East Quad.
100
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Locate primary building
entrances in conspicuous locations
and provide them with shade, shelter
and seating to encourage informal
gatherings. (Goals 1 & 5)
Commentary: There is an interesting contrast between two building
entrances on the north side of Storer
Mall. One has a shaded porch, low walls
and landscaping, but lacks the critical
element of generous shade outside the
entrance itself. A few paces to the east is
an entrance that has broader steps, more
open space, but lacks shade and does
not invite people to linger.
Another need close by each building
entrance but outside the main circulation system, is somewhere to secure
bicycles. A shady spot by a building
entrance is a popular spot to chat and
to study. Collegiality thrives as much in
spaces like these as in the classroom, and
they should be considered as important
components in the design program of
every building.
A functional but uninviting space outside
Hutchinson Hall
Storer Hall has a shady and inviting spot
to congregate outside. Collegiality is
cultivated by such spaces.
101
Guideline: Provide bike storage
conveniently near, but clear of building
entrances and emergency vehicle
routes. (Goals 1, 4, 9, & 10)
Commentary: The necessity of ubiquitous bike storage is obvious to anyone
with even a superficial knowledge of
the U. C. Davis campus. The design of
storage equipment, and its precise location relative to building entrances and
circulation routes should be carefully
considered. For many students, their
bicycle is among the most valuable of
their possessions, and is to be treated
with some care. A storage place must
therefore be secure, and must protect
the bicycle from damage. The widely
used concrete blocks with a wheel
slot do not meet these criteria: many
standard locking devices cannot be
used with them, and if undue loads are
imposed, the wheel in its concrete slot
may be damaged. Racks that separate
machines effectively and accommodate
most locking devices are preferred. Even
if an acceptable rack is provided, if it
is too far from the building entrance
it will not be used, and bicycles will
instead obstruct buildings, be secured
to poles or other convenient anchors,
and may obstruct access for pedestrians
and emergency vehicles. Bicycle storage should be considered as part of the
design program for each building and
the landscape near its entrances.
102
Racks should support bikes properly – not
just by wheel rims, as shown below.
Where insufficient or inappropriate bike
storage is available, bicycles will clutter
building entrances and approaches.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Minimize the use of
temporary buildings on campus.
(Goals 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10)
Commentary: As is amply demonstrated
on the UC Davis campus, temporary
buildings can be remarkable long lived.
This is undesirable for three reasons.
One, temporary buildings are typically exempted from consideration of
architectural and urban design criteria,
and so degrade the overall quality of the
built environment. Two, although temporary, they remove from consideration
some sites for permanent buildings.
Three, they represent poor investment
of resources in the long term: money,
energy and non-reusable materials.
Temporary buildings often occupy their sites for many years,
displacing new permanent buildings to less suitable sites.
103
BUILDING CONFIGURATION & APPEARANCE
Guideline: Articulate the massing of
new buildings so that volumes and
surfaces are consistent in scale with
those of neighboring structures, and fit
the character of the campus as a whole.
[This does not suggest emulation of
insensitively configured buildings.]
(Goals 2, 4, 6, & 8)
Commentary: Many future campus
buildings will necessarily occupy infill
sites between existing structures. It
is particularly important that these
respect features of their neighbors, such
as orientation, overall building mass,
height, materials, and articulation
of surfaces. Respect of neighboring
buildings does not imply matching or
emulating what is there. It does suggest
designing each building as a part of a
cohesive group. A successful new building will enhance, rather than detract
from the existing built environment.
A case in point is Dutton Hall, which
unifies North and South halls, at the
same time, making an ensemble that
contributes more to the campus than
any of the three buildings on its own
(see page 58). Sometimes, there are
features of the existing building that
are no longer appreciated as perhaps
they once were. Briggs Hall, while
functionally a vital part of the campus,
is clad in an architecture that seems
brutal by today’s standards. The Life
104
Awkward juxtapositions such as this
should be avoided.
Life Sciences respects the scale and
rhythms of Briggs Hall, but asserts its
own architecture suitable to a courtyard in
which people congregate.
Sciences building that extends Briggs
to the south and west acknowledges
the massing, height and architectural
rhythms of its older neighbor, but
presents a more humane face to the
world. Also, while relating to Briggs
where directly adjacent to it, the new
building acknowledges a different
Architectural Design Guidelines
Life Sciences is conceived as an
expansion of the Briggs Hall complex.
relationship towards Hutchison Drive,
with a formal entrance at the southwest
corner. There are instances on campus
where new buildings have ignored
their neighbors - as for example
Voorhies Hall, which presents a massive and imperforate concrete tower to
University House, a craftsman cottage
dating from 1907.
105
Guideline: Limit sheer building height to
that of ‘classic’ and adjacent buildings
on campus, with taller elements
stepping back from frontages.
(Goals 2, 3, 6, & 8)
Commentary: The Long Range Plan
noted that as space on campus becomes
scarcer, taller buildings should become
the norm. The first buildings on
campus were of one or two stories.
Mrak Hall and Storer Hall are six
and seven stories respectively, but the
majority of buildings in the central
campus are three or four stories high.
This is a height range that has been able
to satisfy a number of technical and
financial constraints in recent academic
buildings, at the same time achieving
relatively high densities without compromising relationships with adjacent
buildings or landscape. Generally speaking, new buildings should be taller than
the first generation of campus buildings,
except those adjacent to permanent
smaller scale buildings such as the Silo
group. If a greater volume is necessary
to the function of the building, as in the
case of the Wright Theatre next to the
Music building, then a setback or other
architectural device should reconcile the
scale of the taller building with that of
its smaller neighbor.
106
The consistent style and scale of the Silo
complex has been respected by recent
additions.
The tall fly tower of the Wright Theatre is
reconciled with its smaller neighbors by
deliberate architectural intervention.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Use roof forms that
effectively screen rooftop equipment
from views from taller buildings.
(Goals 3 & 7)
An undisciplined array of equipment
has accumulated on the skyline of
Hutchinson Hall.
Commentary: A phenomenon that UC
Davis has largely avoided to date is that
of carefully designed buildings spoiled
by an accumulation of air handling and
other equipment on the roof. Such plant
should be considered an integral part
of the architecture, and screened appropriately, in a manner consistent with
the appearance of the building and the
character of the campus. Equipment on
Hutchison Hall’s roof appears to have
been added in a haphazard way, without
regard to the cluttered skyline created.
Laboratories pose particular problems
in this regard, with numerous fume
hood stacks and ancillary equipment to
deal with. Housing for this equipment
should be spacious enough to allow for
inevitable additions and upgrades of
equipment in future.
Laboratory stacks close to
Hutchinson Drive are screened
by a pitched roof structure.
107
Guideline: Screening of equipment in,
on or adjacent to buildings should be
fully integrated with the architecture of
each building. (Goals 2, 3, 4, & 10)
Commentary: Screening of rooftop
equipment is addressed in the preceding
guidelines. Some buildings have air
handling equipment, standby generators or other equipment on the ground
adjacent to the building served. That
these should be adequately soundproofed and screened from view goes
without saying, but it is important that
screening or complete enclosure should
be designed to be compatible with the
building served and other nearby buildings and landscape features. Screening
on the south side of Engineering II is
consistent with the architecture of the
building proper, but confronts users
of Bainer Hall Drive with a blank
wall, which detracts seriously from the
quality of the approach to the main
entrance to the building.
108
The Silo service yard
awaits another building to
share and screen it.
Service yards pose a different problem,
for vehicular access to loading docks,
outdoor storage, dumpsters and
wash-down areas demand a large area.
Screening of such areas with hedges, as
at the Enology Building, is an effective
but space-consuming solution. A more
satisfactory solution, especially as infill
buildings are added, is to group the
service entrances of two or more buildings around a shared yard that is largely
enclosed by the buildings served. Such
an approach could be taken when the
Silo complex is expanded to the west,
using the new buildings to enclose the
existing open service yard.
Architectural Design Guidelines
An unscreened service yard on the west
side of Tupper Hall greets visitors who use
the adjacent parking lot.
The Enology service
yard is effectively
screened with hedges.
109
Guideline: Use only quality building
materials of known longevity, such as
masonry, stone, tile, precast concrete,
glass and metal. (Goals 3, 9, &10)
Commentary: Some buildings on the
campus have been in use for almost a
century, and it is not unreasonable to
suppose that new buildings and extensions of existing structures will remain
in use for just as long. It is therefore
necessary to consider the long life-cycle
costs associated with building materials,
selecting only those that will continue
to serve their functions effectively over
a long period of time with relatively
little maintenance. The climate at
Davis fortunately spares buildings
from the rigors of freeze-thaw cycles
and excessive moisture, but the effects
of exterior heat and ultra-violet radiation must be considered. At the same
time, energy conservation and other
operation and maintenance costs must
be factored in. The premium paid for
high quality, durable materials can be
recovered in a relatively short payback
period for buildings that are expected
to be used, adapted and used again for
many decades, thereby reducing the
environmental and economic impact of
repeated raw materials extraction.
The transit center at the North Gate
Entry is built to last with robust and
sustainable materials suited to the
climate of UC Davis.
110
Several buildings on campus have been in use
for almost a century. The same expectation
should be made of new buildings.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Exceptions to long-life building materials may be made for reasons
of consistency with historic structures,
and in the cases of lesser, utilitarian
structures. (Goals 2, 4, 5, 9, & 10)
Commentary: Dutton Hall, additions
to the Silo group, and outbuildings
associated with the Veterinary Medical
Teaching Hospital have been built with
timber shingles and other relatively
short-lived cladding materials for reasons of consistency with the architecture of pre-existing adjacent buildings.
This is entirely appropriate. However,
such buildings should take advantage
of current technology and materials
to minimize life-cycle costs by using
effective insulation, moisture and fire
protection etcetera.
The Silo complex
is characterized by
wood shingle-clad
buildings; a justifiable exception to
use of long-life
materials.
Utilitarian agricultural
buildings outside
the central campus
are excepted from
guidelines on
materials.
111
Guideline: Select building material
colors that enhance the quality and
efficiency of the built environment.
(Goals 5, 9, & 10)
Commentary: The climate at U.C.
Davis makes cooling loads greater than
heating loads, so solar gain by buildings
is a concern. Light colors reflect more
energy than dark colors. Thus dark
colored materials will generally increase
the load of a building in direct sunlight.
On the other hand, dark materials tend
to radiate heat away from the building
most efficiently: an advantage while
the building is being cooled, but a disadvantage when it is being heated. On
balance, light colors are more thermally
efficient on the exterior of buildings.
Light colors can cause glare in bright
sunlight, and there are many circumstances in which light-to-mid-toned
colors may be preferable. A beneficial
effect of highly reflective light colors is in
reflecting daylight into an interior space
- thus the preference often shown for
white light-shelves and window frames.
From a maintenance standpoint,
integral color is generally preferred over
applied color, especially where repainting is labor intensive - window frames,
for example. Where paint is used in
direct sunlight, lighter colors will experience less thermal movement than dark
colors, and will usually last longer.
112
Sproul Hall’s south elevation
is predominantly white, with
deep light baffles around windows that admit daylight but
exclude glare and direct sun.
There may be aesthetic or other reasons
for using dark colored exterior materials,
but predominant materials, such as wall
finishes, will generally perform better if
they are light colored.
With these considerations in mind, and
in consideration of established colors and
materials in use on campus, the following
general color palettes are recommended:
1. Generally:
-Walls of light colored concrete or
stucco, or red brick in shaded locations.
- Roofing materials in the same color
register as the roof tiles used in Hart
and Walker (i.e. mid-toned colors).
- Window frames in light-colored, selffinished materials, except where glare
from sources outside is a problem, or
where special aesthetic considerations
prevail.
2. Established ‘stick and shingle’ locations, including East Quad, Silo District
and the vicinity of the Wyatt Pavilion.
- Wood frames and shingles.
Architectural Design Guidelines
BUILDING STRUCTURE
Guideline: To the extent possible,
address seismic stability needs within
the core and perimeter walls of buildings, to maximize flexibility in the use of
assignable space. Avoid load-bearing
partitions. (Goals 3, 9, & 10)
Commentary: It is inevitable that the
uses for which a university building
is originally programmed will change
over time. It is prudent to design all
buildings on campus with a ‘long
life, loose fit’ philosophy. Those that
become obsolete and have to be demolished are those that are not adaptable.
The University has been conservative
in its requirements for seismic stability, and as a consequence, the recent
upgrade in state seismic requirements
has put none of the newer buildings
out of conformance with the more
stringent requirements. This conservatism should continue, but the means of
stiffening structures should interfere as
little as possible with the subdivision of
assignable space. Building cores, stair
towers and exterior walls should bear
as much of the structural load as possible so that all other partitions can be
moved or removed.
Buildings with generous interior spaces
have proved easiest to adapt to changing
needs.
113
Upgrading and replacement
of mechanical equipment
should be planned for
inside every building.
Guideline: Select structural systems and
floor-to-floor heights that will accommodate future remodeling for other uses,
and replacement of HVAC and other
equipment. (Goals 3, 9, & 10)
Commentary: Replacement of obsolete
air handling equipment and introduction
of air conditioning and other ductwork
in some older buildings on campus has
been costly or impracticable because
of limited space above suspended ceilings and under structural members. If
114
anticipated from the outset of structural
design, the cost of adequate space for
upgrades and replacement of equipment,
not to mention simplification of initial
installations, can be minimal. This simple
precaution can lengthen the useful life of
a building considerably, the substantially
increasing the return on investment to
the University over time. It can also avoid
future disfigurement of the building with
exterior-mounted ‘add-on’ equipment,
which should be prohibited.
Architectural Design Guidelines
BUILDING STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY
Guideline: Evaluate materials and
systems based on life cycle costs rather
than on capital costs alone.
(Goals 3, 9, & 10)
Guideline: Evaluate systems that use
natural ventilation, heating and cooling during certain periods of the year.
(Goals 5, 9, & 10
Commentary: It is not merely a matter
of principle, but of fiscal responsibility
that requires all new buildings and
remodels to select building materials
and systems that will conserve energy
and other resources over the long
term. There is now a sufficient body of
information available concerning the
longevity and probable maintenance
needs of different building materials and
systems that life-cycle costs can be projected with some confidence. University
buildings can be expected to remain in
continuous use for many decades, so
long term operation and maintenance
costs must be carefully weighed against
initial capital costs of materials and
systems early in the design process, so
that prudent choices can be made in a
timely fashion.
Commentary: Consider the use of
natural vent, heating, and cooling
strategies to enhance the functioning
of the buildings’ mechanical systems.
Complimentary systems such as these
reduce load on HVAC. By combining
such strategies with emerging technologies like displacement ventilation, university facilities will be most prepared to
take advantage of passive systems.
Involvement of mechanical engineers early in the
design process can result in less costly equipment
and operations by using natural ventilation.
115
Guideline: Orient buildings to minimize
solar gain and maximize usable
daylight. (Goals 5, 9, & 10)
Commentary: Shading devices are often
ineffective in preventing solar gain when
the sun angle is low in the early morning and the evening. Prevention of insolation at these times can significantly
lower the cooling load of a building.
Orienting the building, or windows
within it can ensure that such exposure
does not occur. Shading a building from
morning and evening sun with trees
can achieve the same result. Since only
mature trees are effective in this role, it
may be necessary to site a building so
that it can benefit from existing trees.
However, shading should not exclude
usable daylight. Some buildings have
made use of light shelves that reflect
daylight onto ceilings, thus providing
some illumination without glare or
significant thermal gain.
116
Every stage of the design process, from building siting
through contract administration, should be responsive
to sustainability opportunities.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Consider the placement,
eventual size and density of trees
planted near buildings in relation to
solar gain and natural daylight use.
(Goals 2, 4, 5, & 9)
Commentary: There are places on
campus where redwoods have been
planted where they will become too
large, obliterating light and unbalancing the space around them. Removal
of mature trees invariably becomes an
emotional and controversial issue. The
species and location of trees planted in
association with a building should be
carefully assessed for their long term
effects on daylight and views, as well
as potential reductions in solar gain for
exterior as well as interior spaces. By
shading the surfaces at the perimeter of
a building, heat island effect is reducedcreating a reduced cooling load for the
buildings mechanical system.
Guideline: Progressively replace existing fixtures with water-conserving
fixtures. (Goals 3 & 9)
Commentary: As buildings are remodeled, and new buildings are designed,
specify plumbing fixtures that conserve
water. In the case of hot water fixtures,
this will of course also result in energy
conservation. Reduction in water use
will effectively increase the capacity
of the existing waste water system.
Emerging technologies like waterless
urinals can significantly reduce potable
water consumption.
117
Guideline: Use storm runoff from roofs
to recharge irrigation systems.
(Goals 6 & 9)
Guideline: Select locally manufactured
materials to limit transport-related costs
and impacts. (Goals 9 & 10)
Commentary: Additional development
will result in an increase in impermeable
surfaces, and an increase in the volume
of storm runoff. When storm runoff is
sent directly to storm drains, pollution
often results from combined sewage
overflows that occur during storms.
In addition to maximizing permeable
surfaces, it may be possible to divert
runoff to reservoirs for subsequent
use in irrigation. This would result in
decreased water supply demands, and
reduced peak demands on the storm
drainage system.
Commentary: Materials with a universal
pricing structure, such as cement,
average and incorporate transportation costs, so there is no direct saving
in using locally produced building
materials. However, supporting the local
economy can reap indirect benefits,
as can reduction of transport-related
costs and impacts: air pollution, energy
consumption, infrastructure and other
hidden costs.
evapotranspiration
precipitation
storm runoff
storm runoff
collection
118
landscape
irrigation
Architectural Design Guidelines
Guideline: Specify materials
manufactured using environmentally
sound production processes and
renewable material sources. Favor
certified wood products and recycled
content materials. (Goal 9)
Commentary: This relates more to
community values than to the
economics or aesthetics of architecture.
It does, however, appear to be consistent with U. C. Davis’ philosophy of
environmental responsibility, and is
competitive or in many cases
achievable at similar first cost.
Guideline: Use materials that are
durable, require limited maintenance,
and are recyclable. (Goals 9 & 10)
Commentary: Apart from aspects of
environmental responsibility, this guideline relates to fiscally responsible design
for structures with long life expectancy
with continued University ownership
and operation. Reduced maintenance
costs over the long term can justify
higher initial costs for quality materials.
Guideline: Eliminate CFCs, HCFC,
Halons and volatile organic compounds
in building materials, mechanical
systems, paints and adhesives. (Goal 9)
Commentary: Air quality legislation
continues to tighten restrictions on
harmful agents, so in order to avoid
having to replace equipment to stay
in compliance, it would be wise to
avoid CFCs and other compounds
that are known to be harmful to the
environment, even if there is a small
cost premium involved. A healthy work
and academic environment can help
improve occupant health and reduce the
University’s liability.
Guideline: Accommodate reclamation
and recycling of chemicals in buildings;
Accommodate solid waste recycling
within all new and remodeled buildings;
Protect indoor environmental quality.
(Goal 3 & 9)
Commentary: This guideline is already
followed to a significant extent.
However, recycling opportunities
change over time, and physical accommodation needs may change too, so
flexible initial design is recommended.
119
Guideline: Increase building materials
salvage and construction waste
recycling rates; Encourage energy
auditing by suppliers. (Goal 3, 9, & 10)
Commentary: Building contractors are
increasingly required to follow such
practices by their clients. Waste salvage
and recycling infrastructure is responding with increased sophistication,
and high rates of waster recovery are
being achieved in many regions. If the
University wishes to implement them,
recycling and disposal protocols can be
made uniform and mandatory across
the campus. Similarly, suppliers will
undertake energy auditing in order to
qualify as suppliers to the University.
Guideline: Increase on-site effluent
treatment from laboratories and
agricultural buildings to protect the
campus environment. (Goal 9)
Commentary: At-source waste treatment
may have limited applicability, but can
be cost effective if avoidance of contamination of mass effluent simplifies its
treatment. It may become a necessity as
state and federal authorities more closely
regulate specific substance content,
such as heavy metals concentrations.
This could also provide an educational
opportunity for the study of biological
treatment of waste water by UC Davis
hydrologists or environmental scientists.
120
Guideline: Make consistent use of
performance measures to determine the
environmental and cost effectiveness
of energy reduction and sustainability
investments. (Goals 9 & 10)
Commentary: Without empirical data,
the economic value of implementing
sustainability measures cannot be
properly understood. For example, the
premium paid for low energy equipment is open to challenge during value
engineering, and only experiential cost
information can lead to an appropriate
decision. Use energy studies as part of
the design process to inform selection
of systems and components. Consider
use of a commissioning agent prior
to building occupancy to determine
design effectiveness and assume proper
understanding of equipment operation
by facilities staff.
Guideline: Use a consistent and tested
set of guidelines to achieve project-wide
sustainability. (Goal 9)
Commentary: LEED, though imperfect,
is a valuable tool for design teams for
evaluating progress along set criteria. It
could enable the university to measure
its success against stated goals for project sustainability and to substantiate any
claims to green building or sustainable
design.
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
121
CAMPUS FURNITURE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Recurrent themes in the preceding
Architectural Design Guidelines have
been relationships to human scale and
encouragement of collegial behavior
among building users. These recognize
activity in the space around buildings as
much as within them, so it is appropriate to supplement the Architectural
Design Guidelines with some guidance
on the design and placement of campus
furniture. The following topics are
addressed:
• Lighting
• Seating
• Trash Receptacles
• Bicycle Racks
• Bollards
• Poles
• Signage
• Traffic Controls
• Fountains
• Drinking Fountains
• Sculpture and Other Art Pieces
• Telephones
• Newspaper Vending
122
Lighting
Sufficient and appropriate lighting is
essential to a sense of personal safety for
every campus user after dark. By day,
light fixtures are often conspicuous features of the campus, so their appearance
relative to their surroundings must be
carefully considered.
Traditionally, lighting for vehicular
traffic has been designed separately
from pedestrian lighting, but on the
UC Davis campus, both are so closely
integrated that they must necessarily
be designed as a coordinated system.
This suggests reassessment of the
design parameters for both vehicular
and pedestrian lighting so that as new
fixtures are added and old fixtures
are replaced, each complements and
supports the other. There are some principles that are shared by both:
1. The purpose of street and pathway
lighting is to make vehicles and people’s faces visible and recognizable.
Too often, the ground plane alone is
lit.
2. The efficiency and cost effectiveness
of any fixture depends on light falling
on its intended target alone. All light
that is directed elsewhere is wasted,
and should be minimized.
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
3. With the exception of light used to
4.
5.
6.
7.
feature architecture or other subjects,
light should not be directed above
head height. Upward directed light
not only wastes energy, it intrudes
where it is often a nuisance – into
other properties and into the night
sky.
Light sources should be designed to
avoid glare. This is accomplished by
height above walkers, riders and drivers, suitable brightness and diffusion
of point sources.
Illumination levels should be sufficient to enable recognition at a safe
distance, but should not be so great
that adjacent unlit areas are made
impenetrably dark by contrast.
Recognition is best achieved with
white light; colored light sources,
such as sodium and mercury vapor,
distort color and confuse senses that
are attuned to natural daylight.
Deciduous trees near outdoor lighting can change its effectiveness dramatically between seasons. All trees
and shrubs grow bulkier with time,
and their effects upon lighting must
be monitored.
These fixtures diffuse light to reduce glare, and direct it
laterally, with a cap that prevents light from shining into
upper-story windows or into the night sky. They are twelve
feet high and have metal halide luminaries, which emit
white light, aiding recognition.
These principles are true of all outdoor
lighting, whether freestanding fixtures
along a path or a street or in a parking
lot – or a fixture attached to a building.
Some commonly used fixtures – such
as cobra-head fixtures used along some
streets at UC Davis - fail several of
the principles, and should be avoided
in future.
123
Seating
The purpose of seating on campus is
mostly to provide places for outdoor
study, and to encourage collegial
socializing. The climate is conducive to
year-round use of outdoor seating, with
shady locations favored in the summer
and sunny spots in the cooler months.
People like to be strategically placed to
observe the coming and going of others,
and this too should be considered when
seating is being positioned on site.
The design of seating requires:
• Durable construction and finishes,
• Compatibility in design and appearance with other campus furnishings,
and with adjacent architecture,
• Ability to shed rainwater an
irrigation water quickly,
• Open sightlines with nowhere for
litter to accumulate,
• Firm attachment to the ground –
except for movable seating.
Location of seating should be:
• Near building entrances and
walkways,
• Oriented to provide interesting
and varied views,
• Away from irrigation heads and
vehicle splashes,
• Available in sun or shade,
• Near transit stops, with a clear
view of approaching buses.
These white enameled benches
constructed from recycled steel
tube meet all of the design criteria
listed above. These are grouped
near the entrance of Dutton Hall,
and are variously in sun and
shade at different times of the day.
124
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
Trash and Recycling
Receptacles
Square containers made of precast concrete have become the campus standard,
with the name of the University, or the
universal recycling symbol raised on
one side and painted blue. Also in wide
use is a timber-clad cylinder with a blue
plastic dome cover.
Design features of the trash and
recycling receptacles are:
• Durable construction and finish,
• Recognizable design,
• Accommodate standard, easily
removable liner,
• Conceal contents from view,
• Tall enough to be a visible obstacle
to the partially-sighted,
• Minimize access to rain and
irrigation sprinklers,
• Not prone to being moved or
tipped over,
• Tolerant of rough usage and
resistant to fire,
• No sharp corners,
• Capable of being hosed down.
Well placed litter and recycling
receptacles near pedestrian
routes and sitting areas
Location should be:
• Near seating, crosswalks and
transit stops,
• Accessible to service vehicles,
• Clear of pedestrian and bicycle
through routes, especially
emergency exit routes.
125
Bicycle Racks
Bicycles are such a major part of life at
UC Davis that a special design guideline
is devoted to their storage in the preceding Architectural Design Guidelines:
Guideline: Provide bike storage conveniently near, but clear of building
entrances and emergency vehicle routes.
Some design considerations are:
• A storage space must protect bicycles
from damage,
• Standard locking devices must be
accommodated by the storage rack,
• Bicycles must be sufficiently separated
from one-another that they can be
individually removed without damage
to adjacent bicycles,
• A sufficient number of spaces should
be provided to accommodate overlapping demands at class changes.
Location of bicycle storage racks is
governed largely by the availability
of space where it is needed, but if not
located conveniently, then owners
will store their bikes in places that are
convenient to them, but may obstruct
access or mar building finishes.
126
Bicycles are everywhere in the central
campus. They are prized possessions that
merit care and security, yet they sprawl
across building entrances if there are too
few conveniently located racks.
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
Bollards
Different designs of bollards are used to
fulfill a number of functions:
• To prevent vehicular access into pedestrian and bicycle areas,
• To prevent pedestrian and bicycle
access into hazardous places (with
chain or cable linking them),
• To provide low level lighting, typically
to mark a pedestrian route,
• To mark a separation between ownerships or use zones,
• To provide hitching posts for equestrians.
Design of bollards should be:
• Tall enough to avoid being a tripping
hazard to the sight-impaired,
• Durable, self-finished material capable
of withstanding blows from maneuvering vehicles,
• In certain applications, removable in
case of emergency,
• Compatible with nearby architecture
and campus furniture.
Lighted and non-lighted bollards at the
Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts.
The location of bollards is generally
dictated by their function. They should,
however, be located so that they do not
become unnecessary hazards – located
where drivers parking vehicles cannot
see them, or where they would impede
opening of car doors, for example.
127
Poles
Poles are used to support many different
things, and have a tendency to multiply
unless a concerted effort is made to the
contrary. In some cases, a single pole
can fulfill several different functions. In
others, the need for a pole can be eliminated entirely – as in the case of burying
overhead utilities.
Poles should be located to:
Poles are used to support:
Signage
See the University’s manual on signage.
See also guidelines on poles, previous.
• Street lights,
• Banners,
• Flags,
• Hanging baskets,
• Traffic signals,
• Street names,
• Direction signs,
• Building names and other information,
• Bus stops,
• Special events.
Design considerations applicable to
poled include:
• Minimize the number of poles used by
multiple use of essential poles, and by
removing redundant poles,
• Be consistent in the design and finish
of repetitively used poles, as for light
fixtures,
• Integrate signage with buildings and
other structures rather than mounting
them separately on poles,
128
• Minimize the likelihood of collision
by vehicles, bicyclists and walkers,
• Minimize visual clutter,
• Contribute to a sense of continuity
and consistency in design – as in the
case of street light poles, for example.
Traffic Controls
Traffic signals and other controls are
generally governed by the Federal
Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices,
and administered by the State, County,
or the City of Davis, depending on
the streets involved. Any traffic signals
or other controls installed on campus
streets should be coordinated through
the City of Davis to ensure compatibility with the rest of the City.
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
Fountains
The sight and sound of water can be
particularly pleasing in a hot, dry place;
and there are such places on campus in
the summer. Fountains are sometimes
given to commemorate a person or
event. They can enrich an environment, but can also be troublesome
maintenance commitments. Careful
consideration should be given to the last
point before accepting a fountain on
campus as a gift.
Design considerations include:
Special functions fulfilled by a fountain
can include one or more of the following:
Locate a fountain to be:
• In a place of special and appropriate
significance,
• Clear of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian flows,
• Visible along walkways and from
significant viewpoints on campus,
• Near seating.
• Provide a special point of interest or
identity,
• Enrich the immediate environment,
• Serve as a local landmark to orient
campus users,
• Contribute to a sense of quality and
artfulness in design of the campus,
• Complement nearby architecture or
other features.
• Use only good quality and durable,
waterproof materials,
• Ensure convenient access to plumbing
and other equipment associated with
the fountain,
• Be responsive to the scale of the place
in which it is to be installed,
• Consider places for informal seating
on the structure,
• Consider special illumination.
129
Drinking Fountains
Outdoor drinking fountains can make
a pleasing addition to a place where
students typically assemble between
classes. However, besides providing cool
drinking water, it should also contribute
aesthetically to its location. On a more
modest scale, it can achieve some of the
functions fulfilled by decorative fountains, outlined above.
The design of outdoor drinking fountains should address:
• Durable and sanitary construction
– bronze, for example,
• Bowl and jet to be accessible to everyone,
• Fountain to be securely fastened to the
ground,
• Plumbing to be readily accessible for
maintenance,
• Jet to be aligned so that prevailing
winds will not direct water out of the
bowl.
Locate outdoor drinking fountains to be:
• Near populous pedestrian routes and
intersections,
• At special locations where a drinking
fountain can contribute to the quality
of the space.
130
Campus Furniture Design Guidelines
Sculpture and Other Art Pieces
The campus already benefits from a
number of fine pieces that enrich and
lend a special identity to the place.
Care must be taken to ensure than any
new objets d’art do not conflict with
or compromise the existing pieces.
Their relationship to the immediate
landscape and nearby buildings is also
important. In that respect, a piece that
is commissioned for a particular location can respond to particular issues
of scale, color and orientation. Readymade pieces may be more difficult to
place satisfactorily. Siting criteria are,
in other respects, similar to those given
for fountains, above.
Some art pieces are designed for a particular location and depend upon that place
for their effect. Others are adaptable to a
variety of possible locations.
131
Telephones
Both emergency telephones and
outdoor payphones tend to be standardized on the campus. As they are
replaced over time, it is important to
ensure that the following design features are incorporated:
• Vandal-resistant hardware, including
armored cable, and impact resistant
handset,
• Keypad accessible to both wheelchair
users and standing users,
• Internal illumination,
• Weather resistant,
• Will not accumulate trash,
• Highly visible location by day and
after dark,
• Easily maintained and replaced.
132
Newspaper Dispensers
Many communities have tried and
failed to bring order to a multiplicity of
newspaper dispensers, and have failed.
Distributors have succeeded in invoking
freedom of speech legislation to allow
them great latitude in the design and
location of boxes. However, on the
campus and outside public rights of
way, newspaper dispensers can be tamed
somewhat. Some design and location
considerations are:
• Designate areas in which distributors
can locate and secure their dispensers.
These should be accessible to delivery
vans, but clear of pedestrian crossings
and other through ways.
• Materials and finishes of dispensers
must be consistent with the quality
of the location, to the satisfaction of
the campus architect, otherwise distributors will be asked to remove their
property.
A r c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n Guidelines
Architectural
Design Guidelines
2003
2003
Printed on recycled paper