• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 Urban design and future land...
 Academic facilities
 Support/clinical facilities
 Housing
 Recreation and open space
 Conservation
 Transportation
 General infrastructure
 Utilities
 Public safety
 Facilities maintenance
 Capital improvements






Title: University of Florida campus master plan, 2005-2015 - data & analysis report
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087331/00001
 Material Information
Title: University of Florida campus master plan, 2005-2015 - data & analysis report
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Facilities Planning & Construction, University of Florida
Publisher: Facilities Planning & Construction
Publication Date: 2006
 Subjects
Subject: University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087331
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 15 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Table of Contents
        Page i-1
    List of Figures
        Page i-2
        Page i-3
        Page i-4
    Urban design and future land use
        Page 1-0
        Page 1-1
        Page 1-2
        Page 1-3
        Page 1-4
        Page 1-5
        Page 1-6
        Page 1-7
        Page 1-8
        Page 1-9
        Page 1-10
        Page 1-11
        Page 1-12
        Page 1-13
        Page 1-14
        Page 1-15
        Page 1-16
        Page 1-17
        Page 1-18
        Page 1-19
        Page 1-20
        Page 1-21
        Page 1-22
        Page 1-23
        Page 1-24
        Page 1-25
        Page 1-26
        Page 1-27
        Page 1-28
        Page 1-29
        Page 1-30
        Page 1-31
        Page 1-32
        Page 1-33
        Page 1-34
        Page 1-35
        Page 1-36
        Page 1-37
        Page 1-38
        Page 1-39
        Page 1-40
        Page 1-41
        Page 1-42
        Page 1-43
    Academic facilities
        Page 3-0
        Page 3-1
        Page 3-2
        Page 3-3
        Page 3-4
        Page 3-5
        Page 3-6
        Page 3-7
    Support/clinical facilities
        Page 4-0
        Page 4-1
        Page 4-2
        Page 4-3
        Page 4-4
        Page 4-5
        Page 4-6
        Page 4-7
    Housing
        Page 5-0
        Page 5-1
        Page 5-2
        Page 5-3
        Page 5-4
        Page 5-5
        Page 5-6
        Page 5-7
        Page 5-8
        Page 5-9
        Page 5-10
        Page 5-11
        Page 5-12
        Page 5-13
        Page 5-14
        Page 5-15
        Page 5-16
        Page 5-17
        Page 5-18
    Recreation and open space
        Page 6-0
        Page 6-1
        Page 6-2
        Page 6-3
        Page 6-4
        Page 6-5
        Page 6-6
        Page 6-7
        Page 6-8
        Page 6-9
        Page 6-10
        Page 6-11
        Page 6-12
        Page 6-13
        Page 6-14
        Page 6-15
        Page 6-16
        Page 6-17
        Page 6-18
        Page 6-19
        Page 6-20
        Page 6-21
    Conservation
        Page 7-0
        Page 7-1
        Page 7-2
        Page 7-3
        Page 7-4
        Page 7-5
        Page 7-6
        Page 7-7
        Page 7-8
        Page 7-9
        Page 7-10
        Page 7-11
        Page 7-12
        Page 7-13
        Page 7-14
        Page 7-15
        Page 7-16
        Page 7-17
        Page 7-18
        Page 7-19
        Page 7-20
        Page 7-21
        Page 7-22
        Page 7-23
        Page 7-24
        Page 7-25
        Page 7-26
        Page 7-27
        Page 7-28
        Page 7-29
        Page 7-30
        Page 7-31
        Page 7-32
    Transportation
        Page 8-0
        Page 8-1
        Page 8-2
        Page 8-3
        Page 8-4
        Page 8-5
        Page 8-6
        Page 8-7
        Page 8-8
        Page 8-9
        Page 8-10
        Page 8-11
        Page 8-12
        Page 8-13
        Page 8-14
        Page 8-15
        Page 8-16
        Page 8-17
        Page 8-18
        Page 8-19
        Page 8-20
        Page 8-21
        Page 8-22
        Page 8-23
        Page 8-24
        Page 8-25
        Page 8-26
        Page 8-27
        Page 8-28
        Page 8-29
        Page 8-30
        Page 8-31
        Page 8-32
        Page 8-33
        Page 8-34
        Page 8-35
        Page 8-36
        Page 8-37
        Page 8-38
        Page 8-39
        Page 8-40
        Page 8-41
        Page 8-42
        Page 8-43
        Page 8-44
        Page 8-45
        Page 8-46
        Page 8-47
        Page 8-48
        Page 8-49
        Page 8-50
        Page 8-51
        Page 8-52
        Page 8-53
        Page 8-54
        Page 8-55
        Page 8-56
        Page 8-57
        Page 8-58
        Page 8-59
        Page 8-60
        Page 8-61
        Page 8-62
        Page 8-63
        Page 8-64
        Page 8-65
        Page 8-66
        Page 8-67
        Page 8-68
        Page 8-69
        Page 8-70
    General infrastructure
        Page 9-0
        Page 9-1
        Page 9-2
        Page 9-3
        Page 9-4
        Page 9-5
        Page 9-6
        Page 9-7
        Page 9-8
        Page 9-9
        Page 9-10
        Page 9-11
        Page 9-12
        Page 9-13
        Page 9-14
        Page 9-15
        Page 9-16
        Page 9-17
        Page 9-18
        Page 9-19
        Page 9-20
        Page 9-21
        Page 9-22
        Page 9-23
        Page 9-24
        Page 9-25
        Page 9-26
        Page 9-27
        Page 9-28
        Page 9-29
        Page 9-30
        Page 9-31
    Utilities
        Page 10-0
        Page 10-1
        Page 10-2
        Page 10-3
        Page 10-4
        Page 10-5
        Page 10-6
        Page 10-7
        Page 10-8
        Page 10-9
        Page 10-10
        Page 10-11
    Public safety
        Page 11-0
        Page 11-1
        Page 11-2
        Page 11-3
        Page 11-4
    Facilities maintenance
        Page 12-0
        Page 12-1
        Page 12-2
        Page 12-3
        Page 12-4
        Page 12-5
        Page 12-6
        Page 12-7
        Page 12-8
        Page 12-9
        Page 12-10
    Capital improvements
        Page 13-0
        Page 13-1
        Page 13-2
        Page 13-3
        Page 13-4
        Page 13-5
        Page 13-6
        Page 13-7
        Page 13-8
        Page 13-9
        Page 13-10
        Page 13-11
        Page 13-12
        Page 13-13
        Page 13-14
        Page 13-15
        Page 13-16
        Page 13-17
        Page 13-18
        Page 13-19
        Page 13-20
Full Text






University of Florida Campus Master Plan, 2005-2015

Table of Contents Data & Analysis Report

March 2006


1. & 2. Urban Design and Future Land Use Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

3. Academic Facilities Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

4. Support / Clinical Facilities Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

5. Housing Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

6. Recreation and Open Space Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

7. Conservation Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

8. Transportation Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

9. General Infrastructure Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

10. Utilities Element

11. Public Safety Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

12. Facilities Maintenance Element

13. Capital Improvements Element

2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA & ANALYSIS REPORT









University of Florida Campus Master Plan, 2005-2015

List of Figures Data & Analysis Report
March 2006


1. & 2. Urban Design and Future Land Use Data & Analysis
a. Existing Land Use
b. Land Use Comparison 2000-2010 and 2005-2015

5. Housing Data & Analysis
a. City of Gainesville Multifamily Housing Permits in Context Area, 2003-2004
b. Existing Housing Density, 2004

6. Recreation and Open Space Data & Analysis
a. Existing Active Recreation Resources By Managing Entity

7. Conservation Data & Analysis
a. Austin Cary Memorial Forest Conservation Areas
b. Austin Cary Memorial Forest Natural Communities
c. Austin Cary Memorial Forest Water Resources
d. Austin Cary Memorial Forest Soils
e. Beef Research Unit Conservation Areas
f. Beef Research Unit Natural Communities
g. Beef Research Unit Water Resources
h. Beef Research Unit Soils
i. Dairy Research Unit Conservation Areas
j. Dairy Research Unit Natural Communities
k. Dairy Research Unit Water Resources
1. Dairy Research Unit Soils
m. Lake Wauburg Conservation Areas
n. Lake Wauburg Natural Communities
o. Lake Wauburg Water Resources
p. Lake Wauburg Soils
q. Millhopper Horticulture Unit Conservation Areas
r. Millhopper Horticulture Unit Natural Communities
s. Millhopper Horticulture Unit Water Resources
t. Millhopper Horticulture Unit Soils
u. Newnan's Lake Conservation Areas
v. Newnan's Lake Natural Communities
w. Newnan's Lake Water Resources
x. Newnan's Lake Soils
y. Santa Fe Beef Ranch Conservation Areas
z. Santa Fe Beef Ranch Natural Communities
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015
LIST OF FIGURES DATA & ANALYSIS REPORT









aa. Santa Fe Beef Ranch Water Resources
bb. Santa Fe Beef Ranch Soils
cc. TREEO Natural Communities
dd. TREEO Water Resources
ee. TREEO Soils
ff Wall Farm Natural Communities
gg. Wall Farm Water Resources
hh. Wall Farm Soils
ii. WRUF Tower Natural Communities
jj. WRUF Tower Water Resources
kk. WRUF Tower Soils
11. WUFT Tower Natural Communities
mm. WUFT Tower Water Resources
nn. WUFT Tower Soils
oo. Eastside Natural Communities
pp. Eastside Water Resources
qq. Eastside Soils
rr. Libraries Remote Services Natural Communities
ss. Libraries Remote Services Water Resources
tt. Libraries Remote Services Soils

8. Transportation Data & Analysis
a. Transportation Analysis Zones
b. Pedestrian Environmental Factors
c. Daily Traffic
d. 24-Hour Directional Peak Traffic
e. AM Peak Hour Traffic
f. PM Peak Hour Traffic
g. AM Peak Turning Movement Counts
h. AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Counts
i. Crash Locations by Mode & Injury NE
j. Crash Locations by Mode & Injury NW
k. Crash Locations by Mode & Injury S
1. Crash Locations by Year Central
m. Crash Locations by Year E
n. Crash Locations by Year NE
o. Crash Locations by Year N
p. Crash Locations by Year NW
q. Crash Locations by Year SE
r. Crash Locations by Year S
s. Crash Locations by Year SW
t. Crash Locations by Year W
u. Roadway Resurfacing Priorities
v. Roadway Reconstruction Priorities
w. Transportation System Management Priorities
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015
LIST OF FIGURES DATA & ANALYSIS REPORT










New Road Construction Priorities
Context Area Roads Links Analysis


12. Facilities Maintenance Data & Analysis

a. Existing E&G Buildings by Condition


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015
LIST OF FIGURES DATA & ANALYSIS REPORT








1.
URBAN DESIGN

2.
FUTURE LAND USE

DATA & ANALYSIS







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


I. Historic Campus Master Plans

An important consideration in planning for the future of the University of Florida campus is to
examine its past. The campus framework was first conceived as a series of arches, ellipses and
circles, linking building sites situated on parallel axes. At a later stage, the campus followed grid
patterns with rectangular buildings lining the access corridors and serving as focal points at
terminating vistas. Eventually, unique building shapes appeared using arches and angles not
previously seen in historic buildings. This later building form began to emphasize sweeping
connections of open space that did not necessarily relate to the gridded roadway system.
Remnants of these plans evolving over the past 100 years can be found in the built environment
and the outdoor connections present in the Plaza of the Americas, Reitz Union Lawn, Flavet
Field/Bandshell, Stadium Road (east end), Turlington Plaza and the recreation areas around Lake
Alice.

A. The 1905 Campus Master Plan
The 1905 Master Plan is the first official master plan for the University of Florida. The plan was
created by the architect William A. Edwards in an aim to give the University of Florida an image
that compares favorably to more renowned institutions. Two monumental arches represent the
back bone for this master plan. The arches provide connectivity within the campus in addition to
their aesthetic value. Three major open spaces could be observed in this plan. The main central
green space is in the same location of today's Plaza of the Americas. It was intended to be the
main gathering area of campus, and this was further emphasized by the building organization
around the space, its openness towards University Avenue, and the positioning of an
administration building in the middle of the area.


Open Space Analysis of 1905 Master Plan


The second open space located to the east was distinguished by the chapel located in the middle,
the space was intended to serve both the academic buildings, and the residence units located on


PAGE 1-1
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


the east edge of campus. The third open space was located to the west and was also intended to
serve both the academic units and the dormitories located on the west side of campus.
Transportation and connectivity are major parts of this master plan. The two monumental arches
were the main arteries of campus, providing access to most buildings within the campus area.
Also, a series of geometrically-shaped pathl a% s created linkage between the different areas of
campus and the different open spaces. Also noteworthy, the master plan is nearly symmetrical in
building distribution north and south of the administration building and chapel. Additionally, all
buildings are at right angles from each other.

B. The 1920 Master Plan
The architect of the 1920 master plan was also William A. Edwards. This plan shared a lot of
commonalities with the 1905 plan. The two monumental arches remained significant features of
this plan, but some obvious changes occurred in building locations and distributions. The
administration building as suggested in 1905 was omitted in the 1920 plan. A new building, the
University Auditorium, was built in the north side of the main open green space that was later
known as the plaza of the Americas. The landscape of the Plaza of the Americas was designed by
Fredrick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1927, and the space was dedicated in 1931. The chapel also
suggested in the 1905 plan was not present in the 1920 plan.


Open Space Analysis of 1920 Master Plan


In 1920, the same three main open spaces from 1905 remained in the layout with some variations.
Also, new open spaces and courtyards started to emerge due to building shapes and placements.
The symmetry in building shapes and distribution noticeable in the 1905 plan began to disappear
by 1920. An important aspect of this master plan was that some of the buildings in the plan
actually existed by 1920, which meant that the plan was becoming more set compared to that of
1905. Some of these buildings include the halls of Flint, Anderson, Buckman, Thomas, Bryan,
Peabody, Floyd, the University Auditorium, and Smathers Library. Despite all the modifications
since 1905, the Plaza of the Americas space maintained its openness towards University Avenue
helping to keep the campus open to the general public. Some changes were made to the campus

PAGE 1-2
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


walkways layout; the geometric shapes disappeared and a more grid-like pattern began to emerge.
Also the walkways became narrower, simpler, and less monumental.


C. The 1947/1948 Master Plan
The 1947 land use master plan reflected a number of significant changes when compared to the
previous years. The architect of this plan was Guy Fulton, and the period was the post World War
II boom period. One of the most outstanding differences is the disappearance of the two
monumental arches which were major features of the 1905 and the 1920 plans. By 1947, the area
covered by campus grew significantly compared to previous years. The campus extended south to
Archer Road. Norman Hall was built on the east side of 13th Street, to be the first campus
building built beyond the original campus site. In the west, the expansion was mostly in athletic
facilities and housing. The residence units suggested adjacent to SW 13th Street in the previous
master plans were relocated to the west. A more diverse land use pattern emerged, with more
emphasis on sports and agriculture especially to the south (for agriculture functions).


Open Space Analysis of 1947 Land Use Plan


The open space distribution was also significantly different compared to previous years. The main
open space remained the Plaza of the Americas, however, the open space was extended east
towards SW 13th street. It also branched out south towards the location of today's Reitz Union,
forming an open space corridor. The University Auditorium was the focal point of the space
located at the intersection of the three open spaces. Another significant building was planned, but
never built, as the focal point of the open space to the southwest. This new proposed spatial


PAGE 1-3
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


configuration proved later to have a significant impact on building locations, orientations, and the
future growth of campus.


Transportation changes were also significant in this master plan. The two monumental arches
disappeared from the plan. A larger network of roads and sidewalks emerged. Most sidewalks
and roads remained at right angles from each other, with a few exceptions. By 1947, the
automobile was becoming more common compared to previous years. Interestingly, no parking
category was suggested in this land use plan although a large surface parking lot was shown in
what is now known as the Criser Lot. It is also important to notice that railroad tracks were
present on campus terminating south of the stadium. The tracks were connected to a railroad line
parallel to Archer Road.


Interestingly, the 1947 Land Use Plan was quickly followed by the 1948 Master Plan which
added one additional open space linkage along a northwest-to-southeast alignment connecting the
Florida Gym to the new student union proposed location (roughly today's Reitz Union location)
and southeast through McCarty Woods to what is now the Broward recreation area. This design
plan retained a land use allocation in the middle of the Reitz Lawn open space that would allow
for building construction.


The 1948 Campus Master Plan


PAGE 1-4
MARCH 2006


UNIVERSITY AVENUE
N I' F d Pic




IFa
SSTAMM R.^.1 "


8--

.i


z


i?49 MASTER. CAMPUS PLAN


i"'l' "
,.I .


&


.^:
r.


1* n,,l
is i~x M~i~irr i
trih rrrr
riCLn Li -;-(!i
~Y;( L(sU i, in:


~Y;PIII Plii



ir: i". L^-iimr -11 inr ii-1 rir I;rr i;; h-li:irii ii iu


""'F"L li~l;iarr lu:lrr Jil
iulll.







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

D. The 1957/1958 Master Plan
The 1957/1958 plan continued to reiterate some of the recent campus planning directions that first
emerged in the 1948 master plan. The new spatial configuration suggested in the 1948 plan
became the major feature of the 1957/1958 plan. The open space branched out even further than
that suggested in 1948 to create a new open space corridor starting from the suggested location of
the student center, and ending close to the married housing units near Archer Road. Consistent
with the 1948 plan, the open space corridor also extended west to the location of Flavet Field
today, where men's dorms are suggested in the plan.

Another significant difference is related to building orientations. Most of the newer buildings are
not at right angles and have different orientations. A large number of the suggested buildings
frame the new open space corridors. In some cases, particularly the new dormitories, the angular
placement of some buildings was designed to take advantage of prevailing winds. In this master
plan, the area covered by campus land uses grew dramatically especially through agricultural
functions. The agriculture land use expanded south beyond Lake Alice, and even further beyond
Archer Road. Some important buildings were also shown in this plan. Such buildings include the
Health Science Center, Shands Hospital, married housing units, Corry Village, sororities,
fraternities, the president's home, P.K. Yonge Laboratory School, Tigert Hall, and women's
dormitories.

Another major difference in the 1957/1958 plan is that it shows a number of parking lots in
different areas of campus. This indicates the wide use of vehicles on campus for the first time,
and could be one of the most dramatic changes in campus development history. Yet, although
there are a number of parking lots shown in the map, no separate land use is designated for
parking. Such designation took place in later stages of the campus planning evolution. The
presence of automobiles on campus influenced and continues to influence the development of
campus, especially campus open-spaces and circulation. Other than sweeping open spaces, the
1957/1958 master plan reflects few pedestrian sidewalks with most of the emphasis on
automobile-oriented access. The 1958 Master Plan document includes the land use and open
space patterns consistent with the 1957 document.
























PAGE 1-5
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015

Space Analysis of 1957 Land Use Plan


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


fIiVEESiT A'V~lC'


IREc


l l;E


^ -- I





,- T r .Ui
A jm
a





^ ~. *' ; }
r1 r*r r
1
i, p
,. ~ 'C


it -i

ix



ery






,-._ 4 1

i
-I


(Is


PAGE 1-6
MARCH 2006


WA


.7-
Iiir 4


I-b
..
L,* ,


1*.


I


J*t







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


The 1958 Campus Master Plan
I UNIVERSITY AVENUE


* ? i'.
.. I ..'


^: *~
^- :p ^
-~ g"J


1^
iI
I


,3 -


Sr


1958
)LONG RANGE PROGRAM
FOR CAMPUS OF 20,000

1Ii 6UILD NGS EXISTING 1947
Ld P- POSEC .


SCALE ,l.A


ULNVERU9TY OF FLORID A


947 T. 9!7


r 1 U~i Uli~ Piilrl Pbi


hiRp \ f


E. The 1966 Master Plan
The 1966 master plan was quite similar to the 1957 master plan. The campus area grew even
further west and south by 1966. Most of the growth to the west and south was low density. Only
a few buildings were constructed in the south and west, such as those at Physical Plant. The bulk
of new buildings were established in the northeast part of campus around the open space
corridors, particularly with new construction for family housing and dormitories. For the first
time, the campus area expanded beyond SW 34th Street. Also the golf course area was considered
a part of campus and included in the campus plan.


PAGE 1-7
MARCH 2006


I

1.


g
ul
I


i


3
'J







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


The 1966 Master Plan


rjs" "~--*


* ,E


it


CAMPUS PLAN


-i"


U ,., .- .- .
S" nf ---



.... .. .

.; ;


-J
-


1966


a--.~


One of the significant changes to campus and its planning evolution was the construction of the
Library West building. Although the building is not in itself monumental, its impact on campus
and campus planning was monumental. The location of library west on the north end of the Plaza
of the Americas signaled the end of this plaza as the main entrance to campus, a role it
successfully fulfilled since the beginning of the century. Also, the new Fine Arts building was
located on the east end of the open space extending from the University Auditorium to SW 13th
Street. Although the impact of the Fine Arts building was less significant, both of these buildings
helped shift the focus away from these areas as entrance points to campus. More emphasis was
placed on the new student center, the Reitz Union, as the center point of campus. Also, the open
space north of Tigert Hall became the main gateway to campus, especially due to the major
vehicle entrance area from SW 13th Street, the parking lot, and the monumental features of Tigert
Hall itself. Like the previous master plan, the focus of transportation was on automobile access
and few sidewalks were shown on the map. New streets were created on campus, particularly in
the west.


PAGE 1-8
MARCH 2006


^


n-.



I


i

i







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Space Analysis of 1966 Plan, Core Campus


IT





PII A
- -j -


Tigert Hall
Ent. fce Area


SFiile ZiArts
Building



t fc
T .,.I. >


d


F. The 1974 Master Plan
In terms of spatial layout point, the University of Florida campus in the 1974 plan reflected some
important changes compared to the plan of 1966. Very little change took place in the northeast
area of campus around the Plaza of the Americas between the two years. By 1974, most of the
new developments on campus were being built in the south and the southwest areas. The open
space originally planned in 1966 between the Reitz Union lawn and Diamond Village area
disappeared, as did the open space that had extended into Flavet Field in 1966. The area of Flavet
Field itself was re-planned, and reflected a different distribution of buildings. In the southwest
area of campus, both University Village South and Maguire Village were built. Also, new
buildings emerged in the area to the south of Lake Alice and in the vicinity of Shands Hospital.


PAGE 1-9
MARCH 2006


. 1 -


-




)


** i a"" H


Stiideil
Celnre


, "


-J


*.y,







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


The 1974 Campus Master Plan
53 1 I422

"A a -: t1 -. I i .t1 -


-- L- 1 _d -* Ir I* B
B 'r : 1 t K 'f I ts s t ( 1..'" t.-.3 .. -:1..
_, _- i .... __ .r :


S* I .




I" -" *, i ., -.
B .**r -









-L
-- l, .r W6i.M





1, ~;:J.


/ 6 1 [ 4


a 2 I l


G. The 1987 Master Plan
The 1987 master plan reflects a campus quite similar to the university campus today. Most of the
main open spaces and plazas in 1987 remain unchanged in 2005. The open spaces depict a more
disconnected system than had been envisioned in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Some of the
new structures on campus reflected in this map were the O'Connell Center, and a number of
multi-level parking garages to accommodate increasing amounts of traffic. In this plan, the
campus buildings expanded south beyond Archer Road. Most of this new expansion was through
buildings associated with the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and the College of
Veterinary Medicine.


PAGE 1-10
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015

The 1987 Master Plan Framework


... -m, .
I- I


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


S--I

LIJ a -
I--
M __-
E:J -


~z.


PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN

i- 998-200


MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK ,OR TH. UNIVERSITY F FLORIDA
PREMD wn FACIUTES PLANNING DVIEON MIVERITY or FLORIDA GAINILLE LORIDA


ii w


-~ V-A. JvThdA. I


-.A


H. The Campus Today
As the campus master plans have evolved, the placement of buildings, roads and green spaces
have also been modified. Some recommendations of past plans can be recognized in today's built
environment, while significant shifts from past plan schema can also be observed. The
examination of historic campus master plans provides a glimpse into past decision making, as the
campus evolved from a concept of arches and ellipses, to one of grids and rectilinear building
orientations, to one of sweeping open spaces and irregular building shapes. In many ways these
changing plan concepts reflect state-of-the-art thinking about urban design and architecture at the
time they were conceived.

In early plans, significant buildings such as the University Auditorium were deliberately placed in
the center of prominent open spaces to emphasize the importance of the building. Similarly, a
Chapel was planned to be a central focus of a large open space, but was never built. Buildings
planned in 1966 for the areas now known as McCarty Woods, Harmonic Woods and Bartram-
Carr Woods also never materialized. At one time, the new student union was sited in the middle
of a significant open space, much like the University Auditorium, but was later positioned to the
outer edge of the open space. Other buildings lining the Reitz Union lawn continue to frame this
significant linear open space that had been envisioned as early as 1947. But over time, buildings
such as Library West, Computer Science Engineering and the Fine Arts Complex were placed in
what had been identified as open space. Still, the Plaza of the Americas, Turlington Plaza,
McCarty Woods, Graham Woods and Broward Beach remain as reflections of earlier campus
planning concepts. Today's Flavet Field was filled with temporary student housing in the post
World War II era, but was restored to open space with demolition of those buildings during the

PAGE 1-11
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


late 1970's. The arrangement of land uses, building orientations and circulation systems also
stand as testimony to the history of the University of Florida campus and its tradition of campus
planning. Growth and change have come to the campus along with growth in prosperity and
education of the people of Florida. However, the historic resources of the campus and its overall
congruity have not been compromised. The University of Florida Historic Preservation Plan
Report, prepared in 2004 for the Florida Division of Historic Resources, summarized this
achievement as follows: "The University Record of 1906 predicted, 'It may take a hundred years
for the completion of these plans, but as the State grows..., the University will finally grow into a
splendid and harmonious whole....' It is through this 'harmonious whole' that the University of
Florida campus stands significant among large public universities; it is this harmonious and
compatible growth that the Historic Preservation Plan seeks to protect for future generations."

1905 Campus Master Plan Overlay


'I I


fl U II


SCampus Map Overlay
- Master Plan 1905


Legend

rn- ZCufrvn
f'--] Bu.ng,'

Legend '1905"









N


,


PAGE 1-12
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015

1966 Campus Master Plan Overlay


I OV J ERSi rT
IL-..


1 P.


AVENUE


I I


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Campus Map Overlay
I Master Plan 1966


Legend
SCuwwntUF Road System
, ] ur e l/ fB.iArt,


Legend '1966
SExiip fngs
pmfpsd Builngs
EduS-naLarue
C tons(ce


Lrl" L __

I #


N
El E

s

II I 3O 600 90Q
1 -^ ^ -- -^ ^ Fl


I. Historic Impact Area
In 1989, the University of Florida's Historic District was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places. Subsequently, the university entered into a Memorandum of Agreement in 2001
with the State of Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR) to address the management of
this District. During 2003 and 2004, an extensive analysis of campus historic features was
conducted with funding from the State DHR. This analysis included the designated National
Register Historic District, and also an area around it containing buildings that are turning fifty
years-of-age and are thereby eligible for registration. An ongoing research effort, funded through
2006 by the Getty Foundation, will continue to develop design guidelines, preventive
maintenance protocols and other mechanisms for the continued care of the university's historic
resources. One result of the initial study was the identification of an historic impact area as
delineated in the following figure. This impact area contains the significant structures of the
university architects William A. Edwards, Rudolph Weaver and Guy Fulton spanning 1905 to
1956. The architecture and context of the historic impact area should be the framework for
design guidelines and infill projects that could have an impact on historic resources.


PAGE 1-13
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Campus Historic Impact Area


J. Archaeological Resources
In 2001, the University of Florida entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the State of
Florida Division of Historic Resources for the preservation of the campus historic district and
archaeological resources. This Agreement included a map of known Archaeological sites and
zones of sensitivity, in which archaeological exploration must be conducted prior to any
construction or significant earthwork. The locations of these resources are considered prior to
any construction project and are depicted in a map that is part of the memorandum of agreement.
The archaeological resources data is also included in the analysis performed as part of a
campuswide composite constraints evaluation that is described elsewhere in this report.


K. History and Archaeological Resources of the Alachua County Satellite
Properties
Historic and archaeological data was gathered from Alachua County and the Florida Department
of State for the thirteen satellite properties in Alachua County. The findings of this inquiry
revealed that there are few archaeological sites or historically significant structures on the
properties. There are six archaeological sites on the Millhopper Horticulture Unit site; however,
these areas are placed in the Conservation Future Land Use and considered for transfer to the
State of Florida and Alachua County. Lake Wauburg North contains two identified historically
significant structures, and is the only satellite property with historic buildings. Seven
archaeological sites and an historic bridge exist on the Santa Fe River Beef Ranch site that are all
placed within the Conservation Future Land Use that is owned by the Suwannee River Water
Management District and managed by the University of Florida. The old warden's house on the
Eastside Campus may be of historical significance, but has not been thoroughly investigated or
documented at this time.

PAGE 1-14
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS



II. Composite Constraints

Before updating future building sites or land use designations, an analysis was conducted of the
natural and man-made constraints to building construction throughout campus. To this end, a
taxonomy was created to group together different constraints by the relative degree to which they
limit development or make it inappropriate based on the guiding principles of this master
planning process. For each of these constraints, the best available data were used including some
that was newly gathered for this purpose. The constraints were grouped in the following
categories.

Severe Constraints include wetlands, surveyed floodplains, water bodies, caverns,
archaeological sites and LEED-dedicated open space. Surveyed floodplains were
included in this category because they are based on field-verified data that more
accurately delineate boundaries. LEED-dedicated open space is a policy constraint that
exists where open space was set aside for the express purpose of meeting requirements
of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. Future
applications of the LEED criteria will seek to apply the open space evaluation on a
campus-wide conservation strategy, rather than a site-specific approach that creates
these constraints in developed parts of campus. Land areas containing at least one of
these severe constraints are depicted in red on the following figure.
Moderate Constraints include FEMA floodplains, poorly drained soils, fifty-foot
wetland buffers and hazardous materials sites. Floodplains identified by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency are included as moderate constraints because they are
delineated based on data extrapolated from aerial photography, and as such, have a
lesser degree of accuracy than surveyed floodplains. Poorly drained soils were
identified based upon the characteristics and mapping from the Soil Survey of Alachua
County prepared by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation
Service. Like FEMA floodplains, this information is not field-verified and lacks a high
degree of accuracy, but it can still be useful as a guide. Poorly drained soils, where they
exist, would not prevent construction but may require special construction techniques
and mitigations. The fifty-foot wetland buffer identified as a moderate constraint is the
area around a wetland which, if impacted, requires review by the St. Johns River Water
Management District under the university's existing master stormwater permit.
Hazardous materials sites were included in the moderate constraints because, although
they could add considerable expense to a construction project, the quality of the site
would likely be improved after construction and remediation. For this reason, they were
not categorized as a criterion that would severely constrain construction activity. Land
areas containing at least one of these moderate constraints are depicted in yellow on the
following figure.
Potential Constraints include corrosive soils (as identified in the Alachua County Soil
Survey), Archaeologically Sensitive Sites and slopes of greater than five percent. Each
of these constraints may pose additional design considerations or expense to a
construction project, but would not necessarily be cause for abandoning an otherwise
buildable site. Land areas containing at least one of these potential constraints are
depicted in green on the following figure.




PAGE 1-15
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Rare Plants. In addition to the constraints outlined above, the analysis also mapped known rare
plants. These plants include unique ornamental specimens and naturally occurring plants such as
poppy mallow and trillium. Because the occurrence of these plants is somewhat scattered across
campus, their presence was not included in a constraint map layer, but was depicted in order to
identify sensitive considerations for any construction activity. Ongoing data collection in
collaboration with the university's Department of Botany will expand the database of rare plant
locations for future consideration.

Conclusions. Much of the already developed eastern portion of campus was identified as having
no natural or man-made constraints to further development based on the analysis of these
characteristics. This finding is not surprising because the built areas are consistent with those
places where infrastructure, buildings, utilities, excavation, and other human activities over the
past 100 years have significantly altered the environment and located infrastructure that supports
development. For this reason, the already developed parts of campus should be evaluated for
potential infill sites that benefit from existing infrastructure and minimize negative impacts to less
altered natural areas. Correspondingly, the parts of campus constrained by significant habitat,
hydrological functions, or cultural resources should be protected from encroachment of new
development. Other parts of campus identified as moderately or potentially constrained for
development should seek to find a balance between retaining open space and creating functional
clusters of development.


Composite Constraints to Development


PAGE 1-16
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

III. Walking Distance and Activity Center Analysis
In order to understand the distances and travel options across campus, an analysis of walking
distances between parking and activity centers was conducted. For this purpose, activity centers
were defined as clusters of university development. These centers include existing clusters of
development and those sites where existing development could be expanded to a more critical
mass within an already impacted area. Similarly, existing parking structures and potential
parking structure sites were analyzed to determine their proximity to activity centers. For this
analysis, a five-minute walk distance was based on a 1,000-foot straight-line path. Although, the
actual on-ground distance may be longer, the 1,000-foot path was based upon a very slow
walking speed of three feet per second.

The university has been operating under a policy to provide parking within a fifteen minute walk
of final destination for employees. By depicting a 15-minute walk distance from existing
structured parking, the following figure indicates that this policy has been met. However, a
different distance between destinations should be used to evaluate the degree to which the campus
accommodates walkable distances. Research on pedestrian and bicycle behavior indicates that
people will walk 1,000 to 1,500 feet between destinations, and will bicycle up to three miles for
everyday utilitarian purposes. For the pedestrian, these distances translate to approximately five
to ten minutes of walking. Analysis of the walking distances between existing and potential
activity centers reveals that the campus areas on the east side of campus (i.e. Planning Sectors
"C", "F" and "G" as defined elsewhere in this report) have the appropriate proximity for
connectivity to destinations within and, in many cases, between these developed areas. The site
of the Genetics/Cancer/Biotech Pavilion building has the necessary proximity to the College of
Veterinary Medicine and several properties owned or occupied by the Shands-UF. The cultural
plaza area has the necessary proximity to the University of Florida Hilton Hotel, the Southwest
Recreation Center and the Natural Area Teaching Laboratory. The potential activity center on
Radio Road near SW 34th Street is somewhat isolated, but could have convenient interactions
with the existing village housing complexes and some student recreation areas. However, other
sites including the area around the Law School, Fifield Hall, Mehrhof Hall and Energy Park will
remain somewhat isolated for easy access by pedestrians. Although pedestrian movement within
these activity centers can be accommodated, their more isolated locations will require that
development be accessed by transit and automobile with appropriate parking facilities on site.
Additionally, they will need to be more self-sufficient with either a mix of internal uses or a
function that does not require frequent interaction with other entities on campus. Two additional
figures presented below depict the five-minute walking distance analysis for activity centers and
parking structures.

















PAGE 1-17
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


15-Minute Walking Distance from Existing Structured Parking


Walking Distance Analysis,
Existing Structured Parking


-.* ... ... -







O N.- -



5 n Disn fr E n a P











U% L.'.I\ I t, 1 F
FLOOR IDA




5-Minute Walking Distance from Existing and Potential Activity Centers


(w Walking Distance Analysis.
Actiity Centers


ii
U-~


. -
*



S. I .- .'


0.
* -


PAGE 1-18
MARCH 2006


L I LO I ',
._FLORIDA


- --
-;---;- --

--


--







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


5-Minute Walking Distance from Existing and Potential Structured Parking


-


V .-


Se Walking Distance Analysis.
Strairturrel Pariking


"I'{i .. .. .. .




i i


IV. Intensity and Density Analysis for Existing Development

A. Intensity and Density of Land Use
For the 2005-2015 campus master plan, an analysis was conducted of the existing development
intensity and density by future land use classification. This analysis was also conducted for long-
term potential development beyond the ten-year horizon as described in the build-out scenario
presented in part II.B. of the data and analysis for capital improvements. Building density was
calculated as Ground Area Coverage (GAC) measured by summing existing building footprints,
then dividing by the total acreage of the future land use classification. Building intensity was
calculated as Floor Area Ratio (FAR) measured by dividing the total gross square foot of building
space by the total acreage of the future land use classification. Results of these calculations are
presented in the table below. The Future Land Use Element includes a policy that establishes
standards for densities and intensities for each land use classification expressed as a range of
GAC and FAR. These standards are based on this analysis as well as comparison to the standards
published in the University of Florida Campus Master Plan, 2000-2010.

Building Density and Intensity Analysis Based on Existing (2004) Buildings and
Future Build-Out Scenario (beyond 2015)

Building Density or Ground Building Intensity or
Area Coverage, GAC Floor Area Ratio, FAR
Future Land Use (GSF of Building Footprint / (GSF of Building / GSF of
Classification GSF of Area Area
Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
Academic 0.25 0.42 0.66 1.51
PAGE 1-19
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

Building Density or Ground Building Intensity or
Area Coverage, GAC Floor Area Ratio, FAR
(GSF of Building Footprint / (GSF of Building / GSF of
Future Land Use GSF of Area Area
Classification
Academic Outdoor 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03
Active Recreation 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.26
Active Recreation Outdoor 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
Buffer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Conservation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cultural 0.20 0.38 0.30 1.23
Housing 0.17 0.20 0.41 0.55
Support 0.25 0.33 0.58 1.03
Urban Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Utility 0.28 0.33 0.19 0.40
NOTE: The analysis does not include parking, since the future land use generally coincides with
the paved area of a surface parking lot such that the GAC equals approximately 1.0. Structured
parking is expressed as a factor of the GAC based on the number of floors of parking. In general,
the intensity and density of parking is more appropriately evaluated in terms of the number of
parking spaces and traffic impacts.

In 2002, an analysis was conducted for several sub-areas and sites on campus to determine the
land use and development pattern in terms of building footprint, building bulk, open space, tree
coverage and transportation infrastructure. For the analysis, each area or site was delineated and
a total site area was measured in square feet. Building density was defined as the total building
gross square footage divided by the site area in order to account for building height and bulk.
Ground Area Coverage (GAC) was measured by summing the land area covered by the building
footprint, parking lots, streets, plazas and sidewalks, then dividing by the site area. The GAC
provides a measure of building intensity by describing the land consumption of the building
footprint and its associated hard-surface areas. Open space was calculated to include both
pervious and impervious surfaces that provide outdoor areas for people to congregate or move
through. To that end, open space included a sum of land coverage in sidewalks, plazas, natural
areas and water divided by the site area. Tree canopy coverage was calculated as a subset of open
space by measuring the amount of area covered in tree canopy divided by the land area in open
space (as defined previously). The measure of motor vehicle infrastructure included the area of
land covered by streets and parking lots divided by the site area.

Conclusions. From the 2002 analysis, the variations in intensity and density of land use across
campus become apparent. The differences in the site area size accounts for some, but not all, of
this variation. The Shands/Health Science Center area has by far the densest and most intense
land use pattern, nearly double the GAC of other campus areas and over three times the density of
any other sub-area analyzed. Particularly, the difference is observed when comparing this area
with the similarly-sized IFAS area around Fifield Hall. Areas with large athletic fields and
natural areas, such as the Fraternity, Greater Southwest or Recreational sub-areas, have
significantly lower densities and intensities with more open space as would be expected. Another
observation that can be made is the generally efficient development patterns in the northeastern
part of campus, including the Historic and Reitz Union sub-areas, where open space and building
density are fairly balanced. Also of note is the generally minimal land area given over to motor
vehicle infrastructure. Interestingly, the motor vehicle infrastructure component is highest in the
Historic Sub-Area where the grid street pattern is a significant feature, and much lower in the
Shands/HSC area where structured parking creates land use efficiency.

PAGE 1-20
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


The analysis of individual sites is somewhat less useful for generalization, but does provide a
glimpse into the allocation of land on development sites in different locations, time periods and
building types. Each of these analyses, sub-area and site-specific, provide a range of measures
currently found in the campus environment. The following table and maps summarize the
analysis.

Campus Sub-Area and Site Land Use Development Pattern Analysis
Ground
Area Tree
Site Area Building Coverage Open Canopy Motor Vehicle
Sub-Area (sq. ft.) Density (GAC) Space Coverage Infrastructure

IFAS 1,808,908 0.12 0.46 0.79 0.24 0.11

Greater Southwest 9,323,244 0.13 0.30 0.76 0.21 0.14

Recreational 4,215,463 0.13 0.33 0.81 0.14 0.10

Cultural 3,123,782 0.14 0.29 0.78 0.28 0.15

Veterinary Medicine 2,818,909 0.20 0.37 0.64 0.25 0.18

Fraternity 3,019,678 0.23 0.33 0.70 0.80 0.18

Reitz Union 2,828,379 0.55 0.44 0.69 0.54 0.12

Historic 3,210,538 0.67 0.43 0.57 0.66 0.21

Shands/HCS 1,671,724 2.07 0.71 0.40 0.46 0.16


Ground
Area Tree
Site Area Building Coverage Open Canopy Motor Vehicle
Sites (sq. ft.) Density (GAC) Space Coverage Infrastructure
Entomology Bldg:
Greater SW Sub-Area 497,310 0.20 0.31 0.67 0.45 0.11
Microbiology / Cell:
Greater SW Sub-Area 263,229 0.26 0.44 0.60 0.14 0.13
Lakeside Residence:
Greater SW Sub-Area 432,393 0.41 0.41 0.67 0.12 0.19
Gator Corner Dining:
Fraternity Sub-Area 60,632 0.36 0.58 0.64 0.25 0.01
Mallory /Yulee / Reid:
Reitz Sub-Area 251,638 0.51 0.46 0.65 0.57 0.22
University Auditorium:
Historic Sub-Area 139,744 0.42 0.47 0.83 0.42 <.01
Turlington / Rolfs:
Historic Sub-Area 147,680 0.32 0.87 0.53 0.51 0.04
Tigert Hall: Historic
Sub-Area 126,317 0.63 0.43 0.82 0.64 0.02



PAGE 1-21
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Peabody / Criser:
Historic Sub-Area 77,537 1.20 0.74 0.56 0.09 <.01
Smathers Library
East: Historic Sub-
Area 91,167 1.20 0.64 0.62 0.30 0.04
Brain Institute:
Shands/HCS Sub-
Area 150,418 1.40 0.60 0.56 0.38 0.11
NOTES: Building Density = total building GSF / site area
GAC = (building footprints, parking lots, streets, plazas, sidewalks) / site area
Open Space = (sidewalks, plazas, natural areas, water) / site area
Tree Canopy Coverage = tree canopy / open space area


IFAS Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis

W IFAS SUB-AREAS
Development Pattern
LEGEND:
,-;, f '. .... I*' ""

-TOTAL SITE AREA-
1,801,9o08 SQ. FT.
-OUNDO AREA COVERAGE:

-_ TOTAL = 44,823 SQ.FT.
RATIO: .4
I_ -- -- ,- -- 3'.l3.i_' r i ODFti-T', r,.F):



__di ~ ,~~r.~ itde: 13B"- Na& natural Areas:
.-.AL S Q, FT...ILL- q1 ~ bH.
,,..RATIO:79
TRFEE CANOPY COVLRAGM:


S RATIO. : 24 (f Ope pace)
"a'ri- 1' 1' X4 -MOTOR VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
., Se streets & Parking Lots.
.. -- I.' 02,279 SQ.-r-.

S- UNIVERSITY OF
11,i FLORIDA
E, J Gainesville, Florida
( )" ,' July 31, 2002
N- TO- SC- 1 I


PAGE 1-22
MARCH 2006


Murphree Hall:
Historic Sub-Area


140,134


0.69


0.57


0.59


0.53


0.26







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Greater Southwest Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis


Recreational Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis


PAGE 1-23
MARCH 2006









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


Cultural Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis


Veterinary Medicine Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis



-- .. .. rr .-' S ,- v '. .













-' ,-'..' .

-7A a ""













; WW 'I
t



................. .... ........................................................ ............................... ............ .......................................


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN

DATA & ANALYSIS


11104.0
gonlJ


CULTURAL SUO-AREAS
Development Pattern
LEGBID
II AIqrI r J,.S .....


-TOTAL SITE AREA -
3,123,782 S, IT.
-GROUND AREA COVERAGE:
h'..,.* *, ,.],,,, ","h' '"

TOTAL = 912,756 SQ,FT
RATIO; .29
BUItDING DENSITY (GF):
TOTAL 467,092 SQ.FrT
RATIO: .14
-OPEN SPACE:
Includes: Sidewalks, Planas
& NaturalAreas:
TOTAL 2 --1A- 6' -
RATIO : -A
TREE CANOPY COVERAGE:
includes: Tree Canopy Coverage
Within Open Spae Areas.
TOTAL- 706.756 Q.IT.
RATIO: .28 (O OpenSpaa)
MOTOR VEHICLE F INFRASTRUCTURE
Includes: Streets & Parking Lots.
101AL 488,112 SQ.Ri.
RATIO : .15

UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Gainesville, Florida
July 31, 2002
NOT TO SCAGL


*ET M r [rTIF 8- .EA
Dev e lop-mcir Pa r Is -








-.a
C.I11" I i~' ~ I. AL CC 'V i

























MP FLORIDAl~r~a
I..,. 2s,il t,) a

Jul 16.j 22'


PAGE 1-24
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Fraternity Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis


Reitz Union Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis



-I I 4 -" L' t i -- --

F -
rI
--Xi ,- .--- !_-- i-j -.iU -. -.c. .-- -- -,. 7. "
IM -I

^ .... ..., ....,,_ .-- ,- n





,i!P": =', '-


PAGE 1-25
MARCH 2006


i ~iiL-- r.
ri *b I


fEIrTZ UJrflri SUB-REAS
I Devlopment PacLtrn

rfr ,, ,OUr,
-TOTA SITE AREA -
2,928,379 SQ. FT.


I: r l:I A
ir, li,.'i i .,L LJii ,1 i.., I *.







Gaines lle- J -Flori.a
NOT TO SCALE
-i l r -r lr- : r ( l-.,:





FLORIDA
Galinesujile, norila
July 2, 2002
NOT TO SCALE








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Historic Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis


7 kI'1 II
_____ I jjJ -i


I 1
1 -1t*: I.
-1{ vY i
~-;) P r' i i


1,pil.44


..1iyi j LA C-

SII
II / ____s-


'13 Ih~- r4L7Yt


I It,

*:'U~ ~ ~ I.. 1:1 '~t1





--r---- ~ r-nr~...


Shands Sub-Area Development Pattern Analysis











-
-I -
..


























-- --
"- 4' ~ ,,.- ,' '. -\ *' I



: '*. ...- .~ : .*















,' .: '-_,

_,^ . .


-"I- I


L


HISTORIC SuB AREAS
D:.,clcpmenl Pattern
LEGEND:
BTaJF j j St tburtLtKS
.Irt a c. WeA.nI =




-.- %L I 10. M 0- S, L l-2
, E.ti LE



* RAT. : .67
,, ri. r, r.r, T r, ,r,




,N I'. l 7,
RAT: I .67 I




*i'in` cJ *" ~IJ .4'


L/ Il ;'11





NOT TO SCA~


STANDS SUB-AREAS
Development Pattern
LEGEND:





1''v j- f d f A footprints,

OTAL -1,192,185 SQ.Ft.
RATIO: .71
-SUILDING DENS1TY (G):
IOTAL 3,461,109 SQ.FT,
RATIO: 2.07
-OPEN SPACE:
Includes: Sidewalks, Plazas
& Natural Areas:
bOTAL 678,004 SQ.FT.
RATIO : .40
-IREE CANOPY COVERAGE:
Includes: Tree Canopy Coverage
Within Open Shace Areas.
TOTAL= 317,218 SQ.FT.
RATIO : .46 (Of Open Space)
- MOTOR VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE:
Includes; Streets &a Parkng Lots
TOTAL= 277,652 SQ.F,
RATIO : .16
UNIVERSITY OF
W FLORIDA
Gainesville, Florida
June 26, 2002
NOT TO s5CaE


PAGE 1-26
MARCH 2006


II


,,r


n







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

V. Campus Sectors

In order to evaluate and understand contiguous areas of campus at a smaller scale, the main
campus was divided into twelve planning sectors as presented on the following figure. These
sectors were delineated based, to some extent, on land use patterns and function. Pragmatically,
they were also delineated so as to be proportionally correct for display on maps contained in this
document. Some areas beyond the campus boundary were included in the planning sector
coverage for the purpose of providing a community context and symmetric boundaries.
However, this inclusion does not imply that the university will be making any recommendations
in the non-campus areas.

A general description of each planning sector is as follows:
Planning Sector "A" includes the University Golf Course as a unique land use situated
on University Athletic Association lands and included in the campus master plan
boundary.
Planning Sector "B" includes the Law School, student housing complexes, Greek
housing, athletic and recreation facilities, student support facilities and open spaces.
Because it includes large athletic fields and open spaces, its character is largely one of
lower density development with expansive open spaces between clusters of development.
It includes small linear portion of the Historic Impact Area which straddles Gale
Lemerand Drive to include Tolbert Hall and the former site of Flavet housing.
Planning Sector "C" includes the National Register Historic District, the Historic
Impact Area and a concentration of campus buildings often referred to as the "core
campus" or "northeast comer". It is the portion of campus that is most interconnected
with the Gainesville community across W. University Avenue and W. 13th Street. The
building pattern in Sector "C" is one of generally modest building sizes places in close
proximity to one another with formal open spaces defined by the building locations and
gridded streets.
Planning Sector "D" includes a large western part of campus containing student housing
complexes, athletic and recreation facilities, physical plant facilities, and the new
Orthopaedic Center west of SW 34th Street.
Planning Sector "E" contains Lake Alice and its perimeter including a hydrologically-
connected area south of Mowry Road, and the Bat House and student gardens north of
Museum Road. Significant IFAS academic facilities also exist in this area including
Fifield Hall, Microbiology and Cell Science building, and numerous greenhouses and
support facilities some of which utilize access to Lake Alice for research.
Planning Sector "F" includes a significant built area south of Museum Road containing
a mix of academic buildings, student housing complexes, support facilities and open
space. Its function is most similar to that of Planning Sector "C", although its newer
development period resulted in somewhat different patterns than in the historic part of
campus. It includes small linear portion of the Historic Impact Area which straddles
Museum Road to include University Police Department building (former WRUF radio
station). Compared to Sector "C", buildings in this sector tend to have larger footprints
and modernistic designs. This Sector contains the only high-rise residence hall on
campus at Beaty Towers. And unlike Sector "C", Sector "F" contains several large
surface parking lots and open spaces that are retained in a more natural state (i.e. not
manicured or formally landscaped).


PAGE 1-27
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

Planning Sector "G" is the most intensely and densely developed areas of campus
containing one of the most populous employment concentrations in North Florida. It
includes the Shands/Health Science Center Complex, the College of Veterinary Medicine
area south of SW 16th Avenue, and numerous academic and research buildings as well as
public hospital and clinic facilities. Four of the university's ten parking garages are
located in Sector "G". Compared to other parts of campus, the buildings in Sector "G"
tend to be modernistic and significantly taller, a trait which is blended into the rest of
campus by virtue of being downhill from other structures. Despite its already intense
development, Sector "G" also contains some sizeable tracts appropriate for
redevelopment such as the site of the new Genetics/Cancer/Biotech Pavilion building. Its
position within the larger Gainesville community also suggests the opportunity for new
development connected to off-campus areas along SW 13th Street and Depot Avenue.
Planning Sector "H" includes sorority row, P. K. Yonge Laboratory School and the
Civil and Coastal Engineering facilities on SW 6th Street. It is embedded into the
Gainesville community in an area that is aggressively redeveloping to support community
housing and economic development needs.
Planning Sector "I" includes the southwestern portion of campus containing the Hilton
University Center Hotel and Cultural Complex along with a mix of mostly small-scale
support facilities, academic buildings and resources focused on agriculture and
environmental research. These research facilities include many outdoor teaching and
research resources such as the orchard, irrigation park and various agricultural plots.
Planning Sector "J" is located south of Archer Road and includes a mix of research
clusters such as Energy Park, the Swine Unit, Bee Biology Unit and the Animal Research
Facilities. It also includes significant expanses of conservation lands, pastures and the
organic gardens.
Planning Sector "K" includes the areas south of the major College of Veterinary
Medicine buildings and north of Bivens Arm Lake. Facilities in this Sector include many
small-scale research and academic support structures along with pastures and a dog track.
Planning Sector "L" includes the southernmost university main campus properties
bordered by SW 23rd Terrace, Bivens Arm Lake and Williston Road. This area is largely
occupied by pasture, horticulture and other agricultural teaching resources. The few
structures in this sector include pole barns, sheds and other small unoccupied buildings.



















PAGE 1-28
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Planning Sectors, 2005-2015 Data and Analysis


Figure 1 1
Plarrin g n lS.Ll', Buurndne-s









FL DA

a-








*FLOR'IDA


VI. Campus Connections

A. Open Space and Urban Design Connections
Through the campus master plan development process, important corridors were identified that
provide connectivity between open spaces, campus entry points and major destinations on
campus. These are depicted in two separate maps. The Open Space Connections map identifies
important corridors that provide access for pedestrians and bicyclists moving through and
between the various campus open spaces, as well as physical connections between open spaces
that may accommodate movement of animals, birds, invertebrates and plant seeds. An Urban
Design Connections map includes these corridors, but also adds a concept of a roadway hierarchy
and identification of campus gateways and facilities that attract high volumes of many different
users.


PAGE 1-29
MARCH 2006










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015



Open Space Connections


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN

DATA & ANALYSIS


Urban Design Connections


PAGE 1-30

MARCH 2006


Figure 1 -4

Open Space Connections




- Pedestnan Comem-ns
SharedUs. Path$
Roa1.
---- Cnseks
MasW Plan Bounifa
Pavemen1

10yesCapasun Pmwmen
R.nmmended CpitI Sites

Ge.en SpaOWas,

Umwar Pam









0 ODD 1.600 3.200 4.800

Facilities. Planning
and Constructin
0-200


Figure 1 6

Urban Design Connections


.rwnlFaculrfes
BiciyCe-Pederw G~ys
E-ging Gabiit-
MarCateways
A hbr A- Gmtoy
iOpel Space Ent ace Pnorles
Sht-eduse Paths
Pedesfbn Connc-mi
Creeft
Core Ca.W. R-oads
aoI-y Road
Pnmar Cconrie Road
Setndry Connector Rod
- L-1I CGflr-d. Road
MasterPlan Borrdary
Buildings








Faclirbes Planri ?
aWxI Construdon



FL0IT6D







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

B. Roadway Hierarchy
A roadway hierarchy is a means to distinguish different roadway types on campus that provide
different levels of access. This differentiation can be used to develop design guidelines and
traffic management approaches. In terms of open space connectivity, many of these roadways
also provide pedestrian and bicycle access to urban parks and conservation areas. This typology
is similar to that which is developed by other federal, state and local agencies to classify
roadways for design and funding considerations. As part of the process of developing the
Campus Master Plan for 2005-2015, definitions were developed for a campus roadway hierarchy
as follows. A map of the recommended designations is also included below. The
recommendations even suggest a hierarchy designation for roads that are not built, but are
included as recommended new construction projects. These designations could guide the design
of such facilities if and when they are constructed.
Core Campus roads are within or immediately proximate to the University's Pedestrian
Enhancement Zone. These roads are also within the University's Historic Impact Area.
Their primary function is to provide access for bicyclists and pedestrians, with limited
daytime access for service, delivery and emergency vehicles or vehicles accessing
disabled and gated parking areas. Transit vehicles are allowed on core campus roads
where necessary to provide convenient access to this core academic area. Slow speeds
and pedestrian priority are emphasized on all core campus roadways.
Local Connector roads provide access to campus facilities that are more internally
focused with less emphasis on providing public access or through movement. They are
low-volume roadways that are located in more isolated areas of campus and do not
provide direct access to any primary destinations. Due to their low-volume of vehicles,
bicycle access can be provided in bicycle lanes, wide-curb lanes or general shared-use
pavements (with or without lane striping). Sidewalks may be provided on one side of the
street only. Campus transit routes may run on local connector roads, but are discouraged
when conflicting with bicycle and pedestrian access. Transportation planning should
strive to maintain these roadways in low-volume use. Appropriate traffic calming
techniques are compatible on local connectors where necessary to maintain low volumes
and low speeds.
Secondary Connector roads provide internal circulation, but also serve primary
destinations and or gateways. They carry moderate vehicle volumes and should
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians with bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides.
When vehicle volumes are higher or a major gateway is served, access management to
restrict turning vehicles and limited development on the road frontage are appropriate
techniques to maintain traffic flow without the turn lanes and medians that would be
expected on a Primary Connector. Campus and City transit routes may be present on
these roadways. Appropriate traffic calming techniques are compatible on secondary
connectors where feasible with designs that do not create hazards for transit or bicycle
users.
Primary Connector roads provide access into and through the campus. They serve
primary destinations and gateways including critical intersections with state arterial
roadways. They carry the highest vehicular volumes on campus and high volume transit
routes including City and Campus routes. Transit service should be accommodated with
bus shelters and bus pull-out bays where appropriate. Bicycles should be accommodated
on bicycle lanes and, in some cases, additional shared-use paths that are located on
parallel or alternate alignments. Pedestrians should be provided with sidewalks on both
sides of the road, high-visibility crosswalks and other means of identifying conflict points


PAGE 1-31
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

with vehicles. Appropriate traffic calming techniques are compatible on primary
connectors where feasible with designs that do not create hazards for transit or bicycle
users. Traffic calming and transportation system management techniques should strive to
maintain low speeds, smooth traffic flow and provide safe integration of multiple travel
modes. Landscaped medians with turn lanes should be included in a standard divided
roadway design unless access management and limited development allow smooth traffic
flow on a more narrow travel way.

Gateway Roads are state arterials that form the perimeter of the campus. They provide
primary regional access to the university while also accommodating regional through-
traffic on the state highway system. As these major throughways pass by the university,
their design and intent must create a pleasing and safe environment that enhances the
campus experience and accommodates safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists.
These roadways should not form barriers between the university campus and the
community of apartments, neighborhoods, shops and restaurants that serve the campus
population.


Roadway Hierarchy

S Figure 8- 1
Roadway Hierarchy


a C nrlrnarr COous a poano




V \F MFuur.... Lan U nryd











Ma h 2006





VII. Future Land Use Trends

Since the 1995-2005 Campus Master Plan, the university has tracked land use designations on its
main campus. The 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan, and a subsequent amendment in 2004
brought additional Alachua County properties under the auspices of the campus master plan. In
order to gauge changes on campus and evaluate the impact of proposed plan amendments, the
university tracks the amount of acreage included in each land use category.


PAGE 1-32
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Significant improvements in campus mapping and analysis capabilities occurred during the
period from 2002-2005 enabling more accurate measurements to be made. These improvements
have been fully employed for the 2005-2015 campus master plan, and may account for some
fluctuation in the land use category acreages described. Prior to these data management
improvements, the 1995-2005 Campus Master Plan inconsistently measured water bodies such
that approximately 20 acres were double-counted and included in the Conservation land use
coverage. None of the acreages from the 1995-2005 and 2000-2010 campus master plans include
the approximately 46 acres occupied by campus roadways or an additional 184 acres +/- covered
by water bodies. Beginning with the 2005-2015 campus master plan, all water bodies are
included in the Conservation land use coverage and are calculated as such. Despite these data
discrepancies, the range of acreages is still reasonably consistent and a view of the map
chronology provides insight into the minimal changes that have been made through amendments
to future land use designations.

A. 1995-2005 Adopted Future Land Use
The Future Land Use designations are an expression of the preferred use for campus lands. These
uses may be different than the current use of the land. Also, the future recommended uses may
change based on new information or changing external or internal needs. When the
recommended Future Land Use is changed, it must be formalized through an amendment to the
campus master plan. The 1995-2005 Future Land Use designations are those recommended at the
time the campus master plan for 1995 to 2005 was adopted. The 2000-2010 Future Land Use
designations are those recommended when the 2000-2010 campus master plan was adopted, and
following a series of amendments through 2004. Data are tracked separately for the main campus
and the satellite properties.

Adopted Future Land Use,
1995-2005 Campus Master Plan and 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan
Passive Active Conser-
Academic Support Housing Utility Cultural Rec Rec vation Parking
MP1995-2005 Acres 585 135 129 21 15 180 268 342 158
MP 1995-2005
Acres (as amended
through 1999) 581 125 106 21 13 202 270 345 165


MP2000-2010 Acres 574.0 120.7 131.0 21.8 10.6 217.0 273.0 327.1 134.1
Change in Acres 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6
MP2000-2010 Acres
(as amended 12/02) 574.0 121.3 131.0 21.8 10.6 215.8 273.0 327.1 134.7
Change in Acres -0.7 0.1 0.0 -1.5 0.0 -0.7 -1.9 1.3 3.4
MP2000-2010 Acres
(as amended 8/03) 573.3 121.4 131.0 20.3 10.6 215.1 271.1 328.4 138.1
Change in Acres 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MP2000-2010 Acres
(as amended 3/04) 573.3 121.6 131.0 20.3 10.6 215.1 271.1 328.4 138.1
Note that the 1995-2005 Campus Master Plan calculations inconsistently measured water bodies, causing
approximately 20 acres of water bodies to be incorrectly included in the Conservation land use coverage.



PAGE 1-33
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Adopted Future Land Use,
2000-2010 Campus Master Plan, Alachua County Satellite Properties

Alachua County Passive Active Conser- Parking/
Satellite Property Academic Support Housing Utility Cultural Rec Rec vation Roads
Austin Cary
Memorial Forest 1976.7 110.3
Beef Research Unit 1147.6 120.4
Dairy Research
Unit 1022.2 140.7
Eastside Campus 3.4 1.9 0.3 2.9 3.8
Lake Wauburg 93.2
Millhopper
Horticulture Unit 441.7 90.6
Newnans Lake 92.6
Santa Fe River
Ranch Beef Unit 950.6 749.6
TREEO Center 5.0
UF Libraries
Remote Services 4.6 6.5
Wall Farm / HTU 68.6
WRUF Tower 57.2
WUFT Tower 2.4
NOTE: The Eastside Campus and UF Libraries Remote Services were added to the campus master plan by
an amendment in March 2004. A subsequent amendment in January 2005 slightly modified the Eastside
Campus Future Land Use allocations as represented above.


B. 2004 Existing Land Use
A map was prepared of the existing use of land on the main campus. From this map, the acreage
was calculated for each land use classification. Differences between the existing land use and
future land use indicate areas that are targeted to change from their existing use over time, or
areas that were reallocated based on updated mapping. For example, the 2005-2015 Future Land
Use allocations included small parking lots or landscaped areas associated with individual
buildings in the land use of the building (i.e. Academic/Research, Support, Housing, etc.) rather
than identify them as Parking or Passive Recreation as was often the approach of previous
mapping efforts. In addition to the acreages shown in the table below, there are approximately 73
acres devoted to roads and sidewalks, and another 69 acres in water. A map of the existing
campus land use appears at the end of this report.

Existing Main Campus Land Use, 2004
Passive Active
Academic Support Housing Utility Cultural Rec Rec Conservation Parking
570 106 107 19 8 247 250 324 176


C. 2005-2015 Future Land Use Recommendations
The Future Land Use designations for 2005-2015 represent a comprehensive review and update
to previous designations. The Future Land Use classifications were significantly redefined and
four new land use classifications were created. An Academic/Research-Outdoor classification
was created to recognize those areas used for outdoor teaching and research such as pastures, row

PAGE 1-34
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


crops, greenhouses, arboretums, orchards, irrigation farms and other such outdoor laboratories
typically associated with the Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences or the College of
Veterinary Medicine. Similarly, an Active Recreation-Outdoor land use classification was
created to recognize the open space quality of recreation fields as compared to recreation centers,
gymnasiums, stadiums and other enclosed or semi-enclosed recreation resources. The Passive
Recreation land use was deleted and replaced with two different land use classifications Urban
Park and Green Space Buffer to recognize the functional value of these different types of open
space. As mentioned previously, the application of land uses was somewhat generalized and the
definitions rewritten so that auxiliary uses of a building, such as service drives and courtyards, are
included within the primary use of the building to which the auxiliary uses are associated.

The following tables present Future Land Use designations proposed for the period 2005-2015 as
compared to those of previous campus master plans. Although roads are not a land use
classification, their acreage is included in the table so as to account for the entire campus acreage.
A map at the end of this report displays the areas of campus where Future Land Use designations
are changed from the campus master plan for 2000-2010 to the campus master plan for 2005-
2015.

Comparison of Future Land Use Main Campus, 2005-2015
Future Land Use Future Land Use
Land Use 2005-2015 2000-2010 Future Land Use 2000-2010
Classification (Proposed) (as Amended 2004) (as Originally Adopted)
Academic 275 573 574
Academic Outdoor 325 na na
Active Recreation 72 271 273
Active Recreation -
Outdoor 198 na na
Green Space Buffer 23 na na
Conservation 447 328 327
Cultural 20 11 11
Housing 159 131 131
Parking 93 138 134
Passive Recreation na 215 217
Support/ Clinical 167 122 121
Urban Park 68 na na
Utility 24 20 22
Roads 84 46 46
TOTAL 1955 1855 1855
NOTE: The additional 100 acres reported in the Campus Master Plan for 2005-2015 is the result of
correcting previous mapping errors in the campus boundary and in accounting for roads and water.


PAGE 1-35
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


Future Land Use Change Main Campus, 2004 to 2015


Change from 2004 Amended
Land Use Classification CMP to 2015 Proposed CMP

Academic and Academic-Outdoor 32

Active Recreation and Active
Recreation-Outdoor -1
Buffer and Urban Park
(formerly Passive Recreation) -124
Conservation 115
Cultural 9
Housing 28
Parking -45
Support / Clinical 45
Utility 4
Roads 38
Total 100
* The increase in total acreage is due to mapping errors in the original 2000 base year data primarily
accounting for water and roads. The net gain in Conservation acreage includes the addition of open water
bodies, without which, the net gain in Conservation is 56 acres. Water acreage adds a total of 68 +/- acres
to the total campus acreage that was not previously counted in a land use classification.


VIII. Future Building Sites and Urban Design Recommendations
The Future Land Use designations and the identified future building sites (as discussed in the
Capital Improvements Element) present a concept for the long-term continued growth of the
University of Florida. New buildings are located within land uses that reflect the future needs of
the university. The spatial organization of these sites reflects a desire to provide infill
development in the already-built parts of campus including sensitive infill in the Historic Impact
Area, and more intense infill development south of Museum Road, along Center Drive and
particularly focused in the Health Science Area along Archer Road. Other development is
anticipated to occur in clusters around existing buildings including the Orthopaedic and Sports
Medicine Institute, the Cultural Plaza, Fifield Hall and the Cancer/Genetics Center. These areas
should seek to develop as walkable activity centers with a critical mass of buildings and
occupants that are connected as transit hubs. Additional land is designated to accommodate
future housing and recreation field expansion, particularly in the western portion of campus near
SW 34th Street, Hull Road and Radio Road. In this way, this area can begin to function as a
neighborhood of campus housing, recreation and student services, particularly focused on the
needs of graduate students and their families.

Long-term change is suggested in this campus master plan by providing Future Land Use
designations in the locations of Diamond Village and the SW 6th Street Civil and Coastal
Engineering sites to indicate that the current uses may not be the highest and best use of the land
in the future. However, these changes are not anticipated to occur during the ten-year horizon of
the Campus Master Plan, 2005-2015. Similarly, some change of land use is indicated in the area
occupied by a portion of the Physical Plant complex on Radio Road. While some change in this

PAGE 1-36
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

area may realized in the next ten years, significant displacement of existing facilities in that
location are not anticipated during this plan horizon.

IX. Legal Description
The University of Florida consists geographically of many individual parcels of land
located in 26 different counties throughout the state of Florida. For both functional and
administrative purposes, the University has grouped many of the parcels together, in most
cases by county, to form 39 separate sites identified on the following table that was first
published in the inventory documents for the 1995-2005 campus master plan. The
individual parcels comprising each of these sites range in size from less than one acre to
over 1,850 acres. Collectively, the sites total 20,602+/- acres. The main campus located
in Gainesville contains approximately 1,955 acres and represents the largest single land
holding in the state.

These properties consist of educational, recreational, agricultural and physical plant
support facilities, and include the land holdings of the University htaht have been lesed
from the Board of Trustees of the State Internal Improvement Trust Fund (IITF).
Properties leased by the University form other sources are not included in this inventory.

The University of Florida does not maintain an "official" consolidated set of property
deed records; however, the majority of deed records are maintained on the main campus
at the Physical Plant Division. Additional records are available through the Department
of Environmental Protection for IITF-owned properties, the IFAS Facilities Management
Division and the University of Florida Foundation.

Since the 1995 inventory, two Alachua County Satellite Properties located within the
City of Gainesville were added to the campus master plan jurisdiction and two significant
properties were added to the university main campus. The two properties added to the
main campus included parcel #16252-000-000 on the north rim of Bivens Arm Lake, and
parcel #06698-000-000 located west of SW 34th Street. These properties are contiguous
to the remainder of the university main campus. Additional information about these main
campus properties follows:

Bivens Arm Lake: West of 34th St.:
Parcel #: 16252-000-000 Parcel #: 06698-000-000
Grantor: Dennis R. O'Neil Grantor: Dennis R. O'Neil
Section/Township/Range: 18-10-20 Section/Township/Range: 11-10-19
Deed Date: 12/19/86 Deed Date: 12/19/86
Deed book/Page: OR 1647/139 Deed book/Page: OR 1647/139
IITF lease #: Unknown IITF lease #: Unknown
Lease Status Date: Unknown Lease Status Date: Unknown
Period of lease: 40 years Period of lease: 40 years
Acres: 20.55 Acres: 13.42

The satellite properties added within the City of Gainesville include the Eastside Campus
and the Libraries Remote Storage Facility that were amended into the campus master
plan jurisdiction in 2004. Legal descriptions of these satellite properties follow:



PAGE 1-37
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


UF Libraries Remote Services: 2715 NE 39th Avenue

Commence at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 9 South, Range 20 East, and
run South 1 33'59" East 1225.74feet; thence South 29 033 '01" West 50feet to the South
Right of Way line of State Road Number S-232, the Point ofBeginning:


Thence run South 60 27'59" East, along said Right of Way line, 800 feet to the West
Right of Way line of a 60 foot graded road; thence Southwesterly along said West Right
of Way line approximately 600 feet; thence North 60 027'59" West approximately 800
feet to the Easterly Right of Way line of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad; thence North
29 033 '01" East 600feet to the Point ofBeginning.


UF Eastside Campus: 2006 NE Waldo Road
Commence at intersection of Glen Springs Road (NE 23 Avenue) & State Road 24, run 2
28 2/3 degrees west 672.32 feet to point of beginning northwest perpendicular to
/, ,i,, iv 1045 feet southwest parallel to /'i.hi .i ,, 617 feet southeast perpendicular to
/,,i/1,. iv 1045ft northeast along hi l, .ii 622feet to beginning.


University of Florida Main Campus Property Deeds

Section Deed IITF Lease Period
Parcel Township Deed Book Page Lease Status of
No. Grantor Range Date No. No. No. Date Lease Acres


1-A The Gainesville Co.
C-110, 114& 115
for partial sales
W.R. Thomas & Wife
W.E. Arnow ETAL
1-B W.R Thomas & Wife
1-C W.R. Thomas &
ETAL
E.E. Cannon & Wife
1-D Golf View Realty Co.
1-E St. Plant Board of FI.
1-F Fred D. Bryant
See C-10 partial sale
1-G Louis Days ED AL
1-H A.C. Nichols & Wife
C-107 for partial sale
1-J A.C. Nichols & Wife
C-107 for partial sale
1-K Gainesville Dev. Co.
1-L City of Gainesville
1-M Gainesville Dev. Co.
J.G. Hughes & Wife
1-N A.C. Nichols & Wife


BD. Comm Alachua
County
1-0 A.C. Nichols & Wife
1-P D.J. Richbourg
1-Q City of Gainesville
L Graham ETAL
1-R C.C. Richbourg/Wife
C-105, 109 partial
sale
1-S C.C. Richbourg/Wife
1-T Charles Pinkoson
1-U M.Baumstein & Wife
1-V City of Gainesville
1-Y W.A. Shands & Wife


6-T10S-R20E 7-4-05 1,66


6-T10S-R20E
6-T10S-R20E
7-T1-S-R20E
7-T10S-R20E
7-TOS-R20E

12-T10S-R19E
7-T10S-R20E
11-T10S-R19E

11-T10S-19E
7-T10S-R20E

7-T10S-R20E
18-T10S-R20E
5-T10S-R20E
5-T10S-R20E
5-T10S-R20E
5-T10S-R20E
Napier Grant
18-T10S-R20E
7-T10S-R20E
12-T10S-R19E
13-T10S-R19E
13-T10S-R20E
12-T10S-R19E
7-T10S-R20E
7-T10S-R20E
12-T10S-R19E


12-T10S-R19E
1-T10S-R19E
1-T10S-R19E
8-T10S-R20E
1-T10S-R19E


5-21-16
4-4-56
7-20-05
11-14-11
6-6-13


7-1-25 130
5-17-26 145
12-12-28 157

9-25-61 172
12-14-29 158

12-14-29 158


5-23-31
8-26-82
12-31-32
5-23-32
5-13-36


5-18-71

6-22-36
5-23-39
4-24-40
8-28-51
2-21-44


7-1-44
1-31-47
5-18-61
9-10-49
11-3-50


112 2734 2-18-74 99yrs 320.0


195
23
585 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs 192.0
440 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs 78.3


227 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
294 2734 2-18-74 99yrs
196 2734 2-18-74 99yrs

541 2734 2-18-74 99yrs
446 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

445 2734 2-18-74 99yrs

338 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
207 3294 10-21-83 50 yrs
83 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
540
283 2734 2-18-74 99 yrs


2734 2-18-74 99yrs

2794 2-18-74 99yrs
27J4 2-18-74 99yrs
2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99yrs


2-18-74
2-18-74
2-18-74
2-18-74
2-18-74


99 yrs
99yrs
99 yrs
99 yrs
99yrs


PAGE 1-38
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


University of Florida Main Campus Property Deeds, cont.


Section
Parcel Township
No. Grantor Range

1-Z Lassie Hall Lang 7-T10S-R20E
Lessie Hall Lang 7-T10S-R20E
Releases 1-C,E & Q
1AA Ethlyn C. Perry 1-T10S-R19E
1AB Ruth L Bynum & 8-T10S-R20E
Husband
1AD Fred M. Cone & 8-TOS-R20E
Wife
1AE Archibald S. 8-T10S-R20E
Hampton & W
1AF A.A. Annis & Wife 8-T10S-R20E
1AG Dorthy L. Simpson 8-T10S-R20E
and Husband
1AH S.L. Scruggs & Wife 8-T10S-R20E
1AJ First Bond & Mortg. 8-T10S-R20E
Co. of Gainesville 8-T10S-R20E
City of Gainesville
1AK First Bond & Mortg. 8-T10S-R20E
Co. of Gainesville 8-T10S-R20E
City of Gainesville
1AL Byron M. Winn & 8-T10S-R20E
Wife
1AM Maurine G. Graham 6-T10S-R20E
and Husband
1AN Thomas M. Simpsonr 5-T10S-R20E
and Wife
See C-108
1AO G.G.Ham and ? 6-T10S-R20E
Husband
1AP W.H. Palmer & Wife 7-T10S-R20E
1AQ S.L. Scruggs & Wife 8-T10S-R20E
City of Gainesville 8-T10S-R20E
1AR B.R. Colson & Wife 12-T10S-R19E
12-T10S-R19E
L.L. Goode & Wife 12-T10S-R19E
See "N BD. Comm.
1AS Theta Chi Realty Co. 6-T10S-R20E


Deed IITF Lease Period
Deed Book Page Lease Status of
Date No. No. No. Date Lease Acres


6-9-51 287
6-9-51 288

6-22-51 288
3-21-53 306

3-26-53 307

3-25-53 307

3-26-53 307
2-27-53 307

3-30-53 308
6-22-53 311
11-5-63 104

6-22-53 311
6-6-6- 104

1-12-54 315

4-24-54 320

4-20-54 320


4-26-54 320

1-1-56 342
4-10-56 350
1-19-70 619
7-23-57 368

3-10-58 7

10-2-50 280


2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
2734 2-18-74 99 yrs


2734 2-18-74 99 yrs


2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs


2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs
2734 2-18-74 99 yrs

2734 2-18-74 99 yrs



2734 2-18-74 99 yrs


PAGE 1-39
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


University of Florida Main Campus Property Deeds, cont.


IITF Lease Period
Page Lease Status of
No. No. Date Lease Acres


1AT Joseph R. Fulk (trust)
Joseph R. Fulk (trust)
Joseph R. Fulk (trust)
Joseph R. Fulk (trust)
Title in Name of BOE
in Trust for Co-OP
Living Organization
1AU David B. Murphree
and Wife
1AW Vego Hair Mfg. Co.
1AX G.G. Kirk Patrick
and J.E. Pierson
1BB Alachua County
1BD Alumni Control BD
Delta Sigma PHI

1BF C.B. Nichols & Wife
A.N. Davis
M.E. Nichols
C.B. Nichols
1BG City of Gainesville
1BH City of Gainesville


6-T10S-R19E
6-T10S-R20E
6-T10S-R20E
6-T10S-R20E


7-14-44
6-40
1-14-47
4-19-40


11-T10S-R19E 6-12-64 299


Trust Subject to Use
as CLO Housing


492 2734 2-18-74 99yrs


8-T10S-R20E 10-7-66 407 57 2734 2-18-74 99yrs
8-T10S-R2OE 10-7-66 407 173 2734 2-18-74 99yrs

11-T10S 5-17-72 816 211 2734 2-18-74 99yrs
6-T10S-R20E 6-8-73 838 119 3117 9-21-79 99yrs


7-T10S-R20E
7-T10S-R20E
7-T10S-R20E
7-T10S-R20E
8-T10S-R20E
8-T10S-R20E


4-12-78
6-6-78
4-3-78
4-2-78
3-24-76


NO#



2892 2-18-74 99 yrs
2927 1-21-77 99yrs

TOTAL ACREAGE


0.8






3.5

3.1
3.0

3.37
0.6


2.8



0.22
0.2157

1965.71


Source: University of Florida State Lands Management Plan, 1989,
Architecture/Engineering Department, Physical Plant Division,
University of Florida




X. 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal


The evaluation of any policy document is based in the level of commitment to implementation
and the results achieved as a result of implementation. Rather than reciting policies with
simplistic "yes" or "no" achievement evaluations, this Evaluation and Appraisal summary seeks
to identify the specific actions employed by the university to implement master plan policies, and
the specific outcomes of these actions where milestones can be identified.


A. Policies Related to Urban Design and Enhancement Projects

Policies of the Urban Design Element seek to improve certain areas of campus and focus design
enhancements on campus perimeters and gateways, specifically those policies under Goal 2,
Objectives 2.0 and 3.0. In response to these policies, the University implanted several
landscaping, sidewalk and plaza improvements including completion of seat walls with
landscaping along the W. University Avenue boundary. As called for in Policy 2.5, a first phase
of site improvements was implemented at the Cultural Plaza and additional improvements have
been conceived. Similarly, gateways signage, lighting and landscaping enhancements were
completed at several main entry points along W. University Avenue, SW 13th Street and SW 34th
Street to improve the visual appearance of the campus perimeter. In keeping with policies under
Goal 1, several academic infill projects were completed or underway in existing academic areas.
Particularly successful projects on the campus perimeter included Gerson Hall and an expansion
of Library West. Each of these projects contributed to the campus perimeter appearance through
architectural and landscape treatments that were aesthetically pleasing and respected their historic


PAGE 1-40
MARCH 2006


Parcel
No.


RGrantor


Section
Township
Ranoe


Deed
Deed Book
Date No


.No R n . . ..


_







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

district location. In the area of the historic residence halls, a significant exterior enhancement
was accomplished through the Yardley Courtyard project. This project was the first phase of a
larger site design that includes landscaping, sidewalks, plazas, street furniture, lighting and an
interactive fountain.

Policies related to the development of a greenway system, including Goal 3, policies 1.3 and 2.3
were not accomplished due to a lack of funding for these projects. Another policy that was not
accomplished was under Goal 1, policy 2.4 that seeks to expand the auto-free zone. Although the
physical area was not expanded, some parking was removed (i.e. at the Women's Gym, Criser
parking lot and Library West) while some streetscape and landscaping improvements were
accomplished.

B. Policies Related to Project Design and Review Processes
Several policies in the Urban Design Element and Future Land Use Element describe the capital
project review process and design considerations such as underground powerlines, screened
service drives, utility coordination, soil/geotechnical analysis, building orientations, and building
heights. The University maintained a project review process that includes the Transportation and
Parking Committee, the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Sites Committee, the Lakes,
Vegetation and Landscaping Committee and the Land Use and Facilities Planning Committee.
These committees engage in a three-step process to review capital projects at the programming,
schematic design and design development phase including detailed reviews of landscaping plans.
In addition to the committee reviews, the University provides for input through a design charrette
process for major construction and departmental reviews including the University Police
Department, Environmental Health and Safety Office and the Physical Plant Division. Through
these processes, the University achieves thorough site plan review and consideration of the
policies contained in this element.

Another step toward implementing these design-related policies was accomplished with a rewrite
of the University of Florida Design and Construction Standards in 2003-2004 to incorporate the
revised Florida Building Code and Campus Master Plan policies. These standards include
requirements for indoor air quality, erosion control and tree protection, among other standards.
Compliance with relevant state, federal and university requirements for facility construction and
management is provided by the building permit and hazardous materials monitoring programs
administered by the University's Office of Environmental Health and Safety.

C. Policies Related to Future Land Use Consistency and Master Plan Amendments
Several policies in the Urban Design Element (Goal 4) and Future Land Use Element (Goal 1,
Objective 4 and Goal 2, Objective 2) describe the desire to avoid major deviations from the
campus master plan's future land use designations, and to provide for an open amendment
process to modify the land use coverages or add property to the campus master plan jurisdiction.

As documented elsewhere in this report, the campus master plan's Future Land Use acreages
have not been drastically modified during the plan's implementation from 2000 to 2004. During
that period, there were three amendments that changes land use designations on the main campus.
These changes were minor, and cumulatively resulted in the addition of one acre to Support, one
acre to Conservation, four acres to Parking and the loss of one acre in Academic, one acre in
Utility, two acres in Active Recreation, and two acres in Passive Recreation. These main campus
changes included the addition of a contiguous parcel consisting of 0.2 acres of land that had been
used by the University for many years. At the same time this property was brought into the
campus master plan jurisdiction, two additional satellite properties (Eastside Campus and UF


PAGE 1-41
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

Libraries Remote Services) were brought into the campus master plan following the State's
reassignment of the lease from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to the
University of Florida. Campus Master Plan policies were followed for these land additions and
the university closely coordinated with the City of Gainesville, including conducting a public
workshop and adding related campus master plan policies at the request of the City.

D. Policies Related to Conservation Area Management
Goal 1, Objective 5.0 of the Future Land Use Element reiterates several policies of the
Conservation Element targeting protection and management of natural areas. To implement these
policies, the University has completed final drafts of a campuswide Conservation Area Land
Management (CALM) Plan that will be finalized during the 2005-2006 academic year concurrent
with adoption of the 2005-2015 Campus Master Plan. This CALM Plan provides site conditions
inventory data, best management practices and recommended actions for each individual
conservation area on the main campus. These recommended actions include a variety of
strategies such as access control, interpretive signage, habitat restoration, bird boxes, invasive
non-native plant removal, erosion control, no-mow zones, etc. The CALM Plan was developed
with the involvement of many university and community stakeholders including faculty with
expertise in a variety of ecological disciplines. Together with the 2005-2015 Campus Master
Plan development, the definition and identification of campus Conservation Areas was
thoroughly reviewed and revised.

Implementation of some CALM Plan recommendations occurred simultaneous with plan
development as the university sought to solve immediate problems with currently available
resources. The 2005-2006 release of Capital Improvement Trust Fund monies will be used to
finance an additional $500,000 of enhancements and restoration in campus Conservation Areas.
A Florida Department of Environmental Protection grant was obtained through a joint-application
with the City of Gainesville to implement removal of invasive non-native plants in two campus
Conservation Areas. Additional funding is sought through routine operating capital to address
issues related to stormwater, erosion control and landscaping. Future construction projects and
private benefactors are other possible sources of implementation funds.

E. Policies Related to Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Resources
Goal 1, Objective 6.0 sets policies for the University in regard to historical and archaeological
resources. The University has complied with the provisions of its Memorandum of Agreement
with the State of Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR). Consistent with this
agreement, several building restorations, upgrades and infill projects were initiated in the Historic
District with review from the DHR. These projects included the new Gerson Hall, Library West
addition, Women's Gym/Ustler Hall rehabilitation and Murphree Hall window replacement with
new air conditioning. In addition, the university's Facilities Planning and Construction Division
and the Physical Plant Division collaborated with faculty in the College of Design Construction
and Planning to successfully pursue two campus historic preservation grants. During 2003-2004,
a grant from the DHR allowed the University to document the history of campus development,
recreate an historic campus walking tour map, and inventory historically significant buildings that
are turning fifty-years of age and becoming eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places. A subsequent grant from the Getty Foundation continues through 2007 for the
purpose of further identifying character-defining features of campus historic resources and
developing design guidelines, cyclical maintenance protocols and training modules to address the
management of historic structures.




PAGE 1-42
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


FUTURE LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
DATA & ANALYSIS


F. Policies Related to Intergovernmental Coordination
Goal 2, Objectives 1.0 and 3.0 of the Future Land Use Element discuss various intergovernmental
coordination policies. In keeping with the policies, the University has remained an active
member of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization, and has appointed the City
and County planning directors to the University Future Land Use and Facilities Planning
Committee. The University has also engaged in meetings, field trips and other activities of the
City of Gainesville's Economic Development University and Community College Committee, as
well as other town-gown committees and task forces. The University's redevelopment and
occupation of the former FDOT properties in east Gainesville also represent a step toward
supporting local government economic goals.

Other informal collaborations also produce significant results such as the coordination during
2004 that improved the University Arboretum located on W. University Avenue and W. 22nd
Street. This improvement project was initiated by the NW 22nd Street Neighborhood Association
to provide fencing, landscaping, and stormwater improvements. Several university units
collaborated to provide physical improvements and clean-up at the site, including the Facilities
Planning and Construction Division, Physical Plant Division, Office of the Dean of Students and
the University of Florida Foundation. The City's Public Works Department and Gainesville
Regional Utilities contributed to the overall improvements with stormwater modifications, road
resurfacing and utility pole relocation adjacent to the university project. Members of the
neighborhood association provided financial contributions and volunteer labor. The University
Arboretum effort is one example of university and community collaborations that work toward
implementing master plan policies.


PAGE 1-43
MARCH 2006








3.
ACADEMIC FACILITIES
DATA & ANALYSIS






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ACADEMIC FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


I. Space Inventory


A. Relationship to Campus Master Plan Future Land Uses
In the University of Florida Space Files and Educational Plant Survey, the analysis of indoor
academic space is based on a calculation of net assignable square feet (NASF) of facilities that
provide academic functions. In the Space Files and analysis formula, ten space categories are
recognized plus a category of "other". The ten categories include:

Instructional Academic Support Institutional Support
Classroom Facilities Study Facilities Student Academic
Support
Teaching Laboratory Instructional Media Facilities Office/Computer
Facilities Facilities
Research Laboratory Auditorium/Exhibition Campus Support
Facilities Facilities Facilities
Teaching Gymnasium
Facilities

The Educational Plant Survey for June 2004 through June 2009 identified an unmet need of 319,344
NASF of instructional space and another 502,491 NASF of unmet need in the categories of study
facilities and instructional media (i.e. these classifications largely represent library space and similar
functions).

In terms of the campus master plan future land use classifications, a facility within the
Academic/Research land use category will have a preponderance of Instructional space; however,
Academic Support and Institutional Support space will typically be in the same building. Within
the Space Files, libraries include study facilities and instructional media that are classified within
the Academic Support space type but are identified in the Academic/Research land use
classification of the campus master plan. Auditorium/Exhibition spaces may be found within
academic buildings in the Academic/Research land use classification or within museums and
performance centers placed in the Cultural land use. Teaching Gymnasiums are typically
included in buildings that fall within the Academic/Research land use classification; however,
some such facilities also serve student recreation and may be present in the Active Recreation
land use.

B. Academic Space Definitions
The State University System of Florida Space Needs Formula provides definitions for each
university space type to be used in the analysis of space need and capital project justification. As
described above, these space definitions do not directly translate to campus master plan land use
classifications. These definitions are at the level of individual facilities, floor plans and room
assignments. However, understanding these definitions and the formula assessment of need is
important to understanding the ten-year capital projects list of the campus master plan.

Classroom Facilities. A classroom is defined as a room used for classes and not tied to a specific
subject or discipline by equipment in the room or the configuration of the room. Included in this
category are rooms generally used for scheduled instruction that require no special, restrictive
equipment or configuration. These include lecture rooms, lecture-demonstration rooms, seminar

PAGE 3-1
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ACADEMIC FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

rooms, and general purpose classrooms. Related service areas such as projection rooms,
telecommunications control booths, preparation rooms, closets, storage areas, etc. are included in
this category if they serve classrooms. The net assignable square feet (NASF) needed for
classrooms is based upon 22 NASF per student station, 40 periods of room use per week, and
60% station occupancy. These standards result in a space factor of 0.92 NASF per FTE
enrollment. Using this space factor, NASF requirements are determined by multiplying the FTE
enrollment for each discipline by level times the number of weekly student hours per FTE that are
scheduled in classrooms.

The effect of applying the formula to all universities by level and by discipline provides an
average of 12 NASF per FTE for main campuses. An example for an upper level FTE student in
Engineering is:

.92 (Space Factor) X 15.0 (Weekly Student Hours Per FTE) = 13.8 NASF Per FTE

where Space Factor = Station Size or 22 = .92 NASF
Hours Per Week X Occupancy Rate 40 X .60

Teaching Laboratory Facilities. A teaching laboratory is defined as a room used primarily for
scheduled classes that require special purpose equipment or a specific room configuration for
student participation, experimentation, observation, or practice in an academic discipline.
Included in this category are rooms generally called teaching laboratories, instructional shops,
computer laboratories, drafting rooms, band rooms, choral rooms, music practice rooms, language
laboratories, studios, theater stage areas used primarily for instruction, instructional health
laboratories, and similar specially designed or equipped room if they are used primarily or group
instruction in formally or regularly scheduled classes. Related service areas are also included in
this category.

The NASF need for teaching laboratories is computed by discipline by level and is based on
established station sizes, weekly student hours per FTE, and utilization levels for room use and
station occupancy. The room use standard is 24 hours for lower level and 20 hours for upper
level. The station occupancy rate is 80% for both levels.

The effect of applying the formula to all universities by level and by discipline provides an
average of 15 NASF per FTE for main campuses. An example for an upper level student in
Engineering is:

7.81 (Space Factor) X 5.0 (Weekly Student Hours Per FTE) = 39.05 NASF Per FTE

where Space Factor = Station Size or 125 = 7.81 NASF
Hours Per Week X Occupancy Rate 20 X .80

Although most universities in the System currently generate more than 50,000 NASF, a minimum
facility need of 50,000 NASF is provided for the development of future campuses.

Research Laboratory Facilities. A research laboratory is defined as a room used primarily for
laboratory experimentation, research or training in research methods, professional research and
observation, or structured creative activity within a specific program. Included in this category
are labs used for experiments, testing or "dry runs" in support of instructional, research or public
service activities. Non class public service laboratories which promote new knowledge in

PAGE 3-2
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ACADEMIC FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

academic fields are included in this category (e.g., animal diagnostic laboratories and cooperative
extension laboratories). Related service areas that directly serve these laboratories are included in
this category.

The NASF need for research laboratories is based on an allotment of space by discipline for each
research faculty FTE and graduate student FTE. Space needs are generated separately for
research faculty and graduate students.

Research Faculty Space needs are generated by discipline for Educational and General (E&G)
and Contract and Grant (C&G) faculty. The number of E&G research faculty is based upon the
E&G FTE faculty to FTE student ratio and the percentage of E&G research faculty FTE for the
actual or base year. The number of C&G research faculty FTE is based on a three-year average
growth rate for C&G faculty applied to the actual or base year. The allotment of space for each
research faculty FTE varies from 75 to 450 NASF depending on discipline.

Graduate Students Space needs are generated by discipline for beginning and advanced graduate
student FTE. Graduate student FTE enrollment is divided between beginning and advanced
levels based upon the number of graduate credit hours completed by the student (advanced
graduates are those with 36 or more graduate credit hours).

Research laboratory space is generated for selected University Support Personnel System
positions having research responsibilities that require laboratory facilities. The Beginning
Graduate space factor is used for these positions.

Space allotments for advanced graduates are the same as those applied to research faculty (from
75 to 450 NASF). The allotment of space for a beginning graduate FTE considers sharing of
research space and varies from 3 to 90 NASF. For example, the space allotment for an advanced
graduate student in Engineering is 450 NASF.

Study Facilities. Study facilities include study rooms, stack areas, processing rooms, and study
service areas. The NASF needed for study facilities is based on separately determined NASF
needs for study rooms, carrel space, stack areas, and study service areas.

Study Rooms (Other than Computer Study Rooms): The NASF need for study rooms is based
on 25 NASF per station for 25% of the undergraduate FTE.

Computer Study Rooms: The NASF need for computer study rooms is one station for every 15
FTE, with a station size of 30 NASF.

Carrels: The NASF need for carrels is based on 30 NASF per station for 25% of the beginning
graduate FTE, for 50% of the law FTE, for 25% of the advanced graduate science FTE, and for
50% of the advanced graduate non-science FTE, plus 20 NASF per station for 5% of the science
FTE faculty and for 25% of the non-science FTE faculty.

Stack Areas: The NASF need for stack areas is based on an amount of space per library volume
with all library materials converted to volume equivalents (includes all holdings such as bound
volumes, video and audio tapes, cassettes, microfilms, etc.). The projected volume counts are
based on current inventories plus a continuation of the previous year's acquisitions.




PAGE 3-3
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ACADEMIC FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

Non-Law Stacks: Law Stacks
0.10 NASF/volume for the first 150,000 volumes 0.14 NASF/volume for the first
150,000 volumes

0.09 NASF/volume for the second 150,000 volumes 0.12 NASF/volume for the second
150,000 volumes

0.08 NASF/volume for the next 300,000 volumes 0.10 NASF/volume for the next
300,000 volumes

0.07 NASF/volume for all volumes above 600,000 0.09 NASF/volume for all volumes
above 600,000

Study Facilities Service Areas: The NASF need for study service areas is based on 5% of the
total NASF needed for study rooms, carrels, and stack areas.

Instructional Media Facilities. Instructional Media rooms are used for the production or
distribution of multimedia materials or signals. Included in this category are rooms generally
called TV studios, radio studios, sound studios, photo studios, video or audio cassette and
software production or distribution rooms, and media centers. Service areas such as film, tape, or
cassette libraries or storage areas, media equipment storage rooms, recording rooms, engineering
maintenance rooms, darkrooms, and studio control booths are also included in this category.

A minimum facility of 10,000 NASF and 0.5 NASF per FTE over 4,000 is provided for
instructional media space on main campuses and 0.5 NASF per FTE for branch campuses with no
minimum facility allowance.

Auditorium/Exhibition Facilities. Auditorium/exhibition facilities are defined as rooms
designed and equipped for the assembly of many persons for such events as dramatic, musical,
devotional, livestock judging, or commencement activities or rooms or areas used for exhibition
of materials, works of art, artifacts, etc. and intended for general use by faculty, students, staff,
and the public.

Service areas such as check rooms, ticket booths, dressing rooms, projection booths, property
storage, make-up rooms, costume and scenery shops and storage, green rooms, multimedia and
telecommunications control rooms, workrooms, and vaults are also included in this category.

The NASF need for auditorium/exhibition facilities is based on a space allotment of 3 NASF per
FTE with a 25,000 NASF minimum facility allowance for main campuses.

Teaching Gymnasium Facilities. A teaching gymnasium is defined as a room or area used by
students, staff, or the public for athletic or physical education activities. Included in this category
are rooms generally referred to as gymnasiums, basketball courts, handball courts, squash courts,
wrestling rooms, weight or exercise rooms, racquetball courts, indoor swimming pools, indoor
putting areas, indoor ice rinks, indoor tracks, indoor stadium fields, and field houses. Service
areas such as locker rooms, shower rooms, ticket booths, rooms for dressing, equipment, supply,
storage, first-aid, towels, etc. are also included in this category.





PAGE 3-4
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


ACADEMIC FACILITIES
DATA & ANALYSIS


The NASF need for teaching gymnasiums is based on a minimum facility for each main campus
of 50,000 NASF for the first 5,000 FTE enrollment, plus an additional 3 NASF per FTE for
enrollment over 5,000 FTE.

C. Academic Space Needs in the Educational Plant Survey
Based upon space definitions and formulas in the Educational Plant Survey, additional space is
needed in facilities that are included in the Academic/Research and Academic/Research-Outdoor
land use categories during a five-year period to 2009. These spaces serve various classroom,
laboratory, study, instructional media and exhibition/auditorium space. Specifically, the
Educational Plant Survey identified an unmet space need for 319,344 NASF of Classrooms and
Laboratories, 502,491 NASF of Study and Instructional Media, 23,998 NASF of
Auditorium/Exhibition, and 61,638 of Teaching Gymnasium facilities. These space needs are
only through the year 2009, and do not include teaching and research areas that are unique to the
University of Florida when compared to other State University System schools such as
agricultural sciences, veterinary medicine, engineering and medicine. These, and other academic
pursuits at the University of Florida, have unique space and equipment needs that do not
necessarily fit within the statewide formulas. Much of the academic support need identified in
the Educational Plant Survey falls under the category of "study" and identifies shortages in
library resources that will be addressed in the Academic/Research Element. The space need
identified in the following table accounts for funded projects under construction in 2004
including the Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Institute, Genetics and Cancer Research
Center, Library West Addition and Renovation, Constans Theater Addition, Welcome
Center/Bookstore, Pharmacy Remodeling, Holland Legal Information Center and Gerson
Hall/Accounting Classroom. The space need reported in the table below is in addition to the
space that is provided by these funded projects.


Comparison of Existing
Category, 2004-2009


Satisfactory Space with Generated NASF Needs by


PAGE 3-5
MARCH 2006


Space Category Generated Need Existing Space Unmet Need
Instructional
Classroom 410,915 381,286 29,629
Teaching Laboratory 563,398 475,888 87,510
Research
Laboratory 1,763,570 1,561,365 202,205
Academic Support
Study 944,962 451,129 493,883
Instructional Media 27,561 18,953 8,608
Auditorium/Exhibition 107,382 83,384 23,998
Teaching Gymnasium 133,154 71,516 61,638
Institutional Support
Student Academic
Support 21,476 2,221 19,255
Office/Computer 2,156,589 1,993,660 162,929
Campus Support Services 306,450 196,238 110,212







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ACADEMIC FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

II. Campus Master Plan

The Campus Master Plan defines the Academic/Research Land Use in two different
classifications. These are intended to segregate those areas targeted for development of typical
classroom and laboratory buildings from those academic and research pursuits that utilize
pastures, arboretums, orchards, row crops, greenhouses and other such outdoor facilities. The
Future Land Use Element identifies these land use classifications as follows:

* Academic/Research: The Academic/Research land use classification identifies those areas
on the campus that are appropriate for academic and research building development.
Adjacent land use and proximity to other Academic/Research uses are primary location
criteria for Academic/Research in order to consolidate these functions into convenient,
walkable clusters of development. Extension functions are included in the
A ,,,Ii \i,, r ,Ii/ h land use classification and are encouraged to be located on the campus
perimeter or satellite properties if they require frequent visitor access. Ancillary uses
associated with an academic/research facility, such as utilities, service drives, user and
disabled parking, and functional open space are allowed within the Academic/Research land
use classification. Development densities, heights and patterns in the Ao,,, ,iJ,, RI 'L ii
land use shall respect pedestrian connections, historic context (where applicable),
adjacencies to other land uses and creation of functional open space while maximizing the
efficient use of building footprints to the extent feasible within construction budgets and
program requirements.
* Academic/Research Outdoor: The Academic/Research Outdoor land use classification
identifies those areas on the campus that are appropriate for agriculture and livestock
activities providing teaching, research and extension that require close proximity to other
main campus resources or are located on satellite properties away from the main campus.
Allowable structure development shall typically include greenhouses, pole barns, equipment
storage sheds, and other support buildings associated with an agricultural or livestock use.
Office and laboratory structures shall be allowable on conditions that their size, scope and
function are related to and compatible with agriculture and livestock activities. Ancillary
uses associated with an academic/research outdoor activity, such as utilities, service drives,
user and disabled parking, and functional open space are allowed within the
A. I ,, i >,, li 'r. ,, h Outdoor land use classification.

The Future Land Use map for 2005-2015 identifies 275 acres in the Academic/Research Land
Use classification, and 331 acres in the Academic/Research-Outdoor Land Use classification.
This is an increase of 33 acres from that identified in the previous campus master plan.

Based on the Campus Master Plan Future Land Use map, the university contained 7,757,144
gross square feet of building space in the Academic/Research Land Use classification as of
December 2004. The 10-year Capital Projects list includes 2,089,856 gross square feet of net
new space to be constructed within the Academic/Research and Academic/Research-Outdoor
Land Use during in the 10-year plan horizon. Only a very small amount of this space, including
greenhouses and a livestock pavilion are anticipated in the Academic/Research-Outdoor areas.








PAGE 3-6
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ACADEMIC FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


III. Evening Class Offerings

Extending the hours of class offerings is one strategy to increase efficiency of classroom
utilization, and spread the impacts of parking and transportation beyond the typical operating
peak hours. The University of Florida Campus Master Plan, 2000-2010, included a
recommendation in Goal 2, Policy 1.1 for increasing night class offerings as a means of
dispersing traffic impacts. The University has increased class offerings after 5:00 PM by forty-
nine class meetings from 593 class meetings in 1999 to 642 class meetings in 2005. This analysis
was based on software that counted multiple-period classes as one meeting. Based on this
analysis, 274 more students were served by evening classes in 2005 than in 1999.

IV. 2000-2001 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

During the period from 2000 through 2004, the University constructed 351,559 net new gross
square feet of space in the Academic/Research Land Use classification. Funded projects that
were in design or construction by December 2004 add another 715,237 gross square feet of
building space in the Academic/Research Land Use. The amount of academic/research space
constructed and under construction during this time period was consistent with that approved in
the Campus Development Agreement, 2000-2010.

The goals, objectives and policies of the Academic Facilities Element address the intent to
construct and manage academic spaces consistent with need generated by enrollment growth.
Additionally, these policies address the requirement to maintain inventories, prioritize need and
amend the campus master plan's Capital Improvement Element as required to reflect changing
need. By constructing the necessary new building space, maintaining the Physical Space Files
inventory and appropriately amending the campus master plan, the university has met these goals,
objectives and policies related to Academic Facilities.

The Facilities Planning and Construction Division has also implemented advanced space tracking
tools in collaboration with the Office of Contracts and Grants and the Registrar's Office that
enable detailed evaluation of space utilization. These data tracking and analysis tools implement
Academic Facilities Element policies related to evaluation of space efficiency. The identification
of a new land use classification to recognize academic/research activities in outdoor teaching and
laboratory spaces implements a policy in the Academic Facilities Element to retain sufficient
space for such uses. The Element also included policies about relocating programs to areas off of
the main campus or locations not included in the campus master plan. Since 2000, the Eastside
Campus was added to the campus master plan and additional academic programs were moved to
that site along with institutional support functions. These actions and the campus master plan
amendment process used to implement them were consistent with policies of the Academic
Facilities Element.

Between 2000 and 2004, the university was able to construct or initiate construction of a
significant amount of academic space including a library expansion. However, funding levels for
new building space were not sufficient to completely close the gap in unmet space need for
classrooms, laboratories and libraries. This finding is demonstrated in the Educational Plant
Survey, and is a critical area where Academic Facilities Element policies related to space
sufficiency were not adequately met.



PAGE 3-7
MARCH 2006








4.
SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
DATA & ANALYSIS






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


I. Space Inventory

A. Relationship to Campus Master Plan Future Land Uses
In the University of Florida Space Files and Educational Plant Survey, the analysis of indoor support
space is based on a calculation of net assignable square feet (NASF) of facilities that support
academic functions. In the Space Files and analysis formula, ten space categories are recognized
plus a category of "other". The ten categories include:

Instructional Academic Support Institutional Support
Classroom Facilities Study Facilities Student Academic
Support
Teaching Laboratory Instructional Media Facilities Office/Computer
Facilities Facilities
Research Laboratory Auditorium/Exhibition Campus Support
Facilities Facilities Facilities
Teaching Gymnasium
Facilities

In relation to the Campus Master Plan future land use categories, these indoor support space types
are somewhat problematic because the space types are typically present in buildings along with
other use types. A facility within the Academic/Research land use category will have a
preponderance of Instructional space; however, Academic Support and Institutional Support
space will typically be in the same building. Similarly, the auditorium/exhibition space type is
typically identified within the Cultural land use classification and also within buildings in the
Academic/Research land use classification. In prior campus planning efforts, recreation facilities
have also been considered within the Support Element because Teaching Gymnasiums fall within
the Space Files definition of support. However, those facilities are now exclusively addressed in
the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Campus Master Plan for 2005-2015 because
teaching gymnasiums on the University of Florida campus are also made available for casual
student recreation. Within the Space Files, libraries are included as study facilities and
instructional media that are classified within the Academic Support space type. However, the
campus master plan allocates libraries within the Academic/Research Land Use classification due
to their direct role in teaching and investigation.

Specifically, support space includes a variety of campus facilities such as computer laboratories,
physical plant operations and maintenance facilities, mail and documents services, administrative
offices, storage facilities, dining halls, child day care facilities, academic advising, student
services and student health centers. In terms of the campus master plan land use classifications,
facilities with a preponderance of Academic Support, Institutional Support, or "other" space are
placed in the Support/Clinical land use classification. Additionally, support spaces such as
research animal care facilities, medical clinics and the P.K. Yonge Developmental Research
School are also placed in the Support/Clinical land use classification because they support
teaching and investigation, but are not purely academic or research. Most facilities placed in the
Support/Clinical land use classification are typified by a service-oriented purpose providing a
service to students, faculty, staff or the general public. These are just a sampling of the array of
university activities that support academic functions and are consistent with the support space
type and land use classification. They are critical to the university's mission and cover a broad



PAGE 4-1
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

spectrum of functions, and therefore, include a significant amount of the campus' physical
facilities.


B. Support Space Definitions
The State University System of Florida Space Needs Formula provides definitions for each
university space type to be used in the analysis of space need and capital project justification. As
described above, these space definitions do not directly translate to campus master plan land use
classifications. These definitions are at the level of individual facilities, floor plans and room
assignments. However, understanding these definitions and the formula assessment of need is
important to understanding the ten-year capital projects list of the campus master plan.

Study Facilities. Study facilities include study rooms, stack areas, processing rooms, and study
service areas. The NASF needed for study facilities is based on separately determined NASF
needs for study rooms, carrel space, stack areas, and study service areas.

Study Rooms (Other than Computer Study Rooms): The NASF need for study rooms is based
on 25 NASF per station for 25% of the undergraduate FTE.

Computer Study Rooms: The NASF need for computer study rooms is one station for every 15
FTE, with a station size of 30 NASF.

Carrels: The NASF need for carrels is based on 30 NASF per station for 25% of the beginning
graduate FTE, for 50% of the law FTE, for 25% of the advanced graduate science FTE, and for
50% of the advanced graduate non-science FTE, plus 20 NASF per station for 5% of the science
FTE faculty and for 25% of the non-science FTE faculty.

Stack Areas: The NASF need for stack areas is based on an amount of space per library volume
with all library materials converted to volume equivalents (includes all holdings such as bound
volumes, video and audio tapes, cassettes, microfilms, etc.). The projected volume counts are
based on current inventories plus a continuation of the previous year's acquisitions.

Non-Law Stacks: Law Stacks
0.10 NASF/volume for the first 150,000 volumes 0.14 NASF/volume for the first
150,000 volumes

0.09 NASF/volume for the second 150,000 volumes 0.12 NASF/volume for the second
150,000 volumes

0.08 NASF/volume for the next 300,000 volumes 0.10 NASF/volume for the next
300,000 volumes

0.07 NASF/volume for all volumes above 600,000 0.09 NASF/volume for all volumes
above 600,000

Study Facilities Service Areas: The NASF need for study service areas is based on 5% of the
total NASF needed for study rooms, carrels, and stack areas.

Instructional Media Facilities. Instructional Media rooms are used for the production or
distribution of multimedia materials or signals. Included in this category are rooms generally

PAGE 4-2
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

called TV studios, radio studios, sound studios, photo studios, video or audio cassette and
software production or distribution rooms, and media centers. Service areas such as film, tape, or
cassette libraries or storage areas, media equipment storage rooms, recording rooms, engineering
maintenance rooms, darkrooms, and studio control booths are also included in this category.

A minimum facility of 10,000 NASF and 0.5 NASF per FTE over 4,000 is provided for
instructional media space on main campuses and 0.5 NASF per FTE for branch campuses with no
minimum facility allowance.

Auditorium/Exhibition Facilities. Auditorium/exhibition facilities are defined as rooms
designed and equipped for the assembly of many persons for such events as dramatic, musical,
devotional, livestock judging, or commencement activities or rooms or areas used for exhibition
of materials, works of art, artifacts, etc. and intended for general use by faculty, students, staff,
and the public.

Service areas such as check rooms, ticket booths, dressing rooms, projection booths, property
storage, make-up rooms, costume and scenery shops and storage, green rooms, multimedia and
telecommunications control rooms, workrooms, and vaults are also included in this category.

The NASF need for auditorium/exhibition facilities is based on a space allotment of 3 NASF per
FTE with a 25,000 NASF minimum facility allowance for main campuses.

Student Academic Support Facilities. A student academic support room is defined as a room in
an academic building where students hold meetings or group discussions of an academic nature.
Rooms that directly serve academic meeting rooms are also included in this category.

Student academic meeting room need is based on 0.6 NASF per FTE enrollment.

Office/Computer Facilities. An office is defined as a room housing faculty, staff, or students
working at one or more desks, tables or workstations. A computer facility in this category is
defined as a room used as a computer-based data processing or telecommunications center with
applications that are broad enough to serve the overall administrative or academic equipment
needs of a central group of users, department, college, school, or entire institution. Rooms that
directly serve these areas are also included in this category, as well as faculty and staff lounges.

The NASF need for offices/computer facilities is based on a space allotment of 145 NASF per
FTE position requiring office space. Examples of positions not requiring space include
maintenance mechanics, scientific photographers, and dental technicians. FTE positions are
projected based upon the current ratio of FTE positions requiring space to annual FTE students.
The number of C&G positions is based on a three-year average growth rate for C&G positions
applied to the actual or base year. The need for faculty and staff lounges is based on 3 NASF per
position.

Campus Support Facilities. Campus support facilities are defined as those areas used for
institution-wide services. This includes maintenance shops, central storage areas, central service
areas, vehicle storage facilities, hazardous materials facilities, plus related service areas such as
supply storage areas, closets, and equipment rooms.





PAGE 4-3
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
DATA & ANALYSIS


The NASF need for campus support facilities is based on 5% of the total NASF generated by the
formula plus other areas maintained by physical plant staff such as continuing education
buildings and clinic space.


C. Support Space Needs in the Educational Plant Survey
Based upon space definitions and formulas in the Educational Plant Survey, additional space is
needed in a variety of Support/Clinical and Cultural land use categories during a five-year period
to 2009. These spaces serve various administrative, academic support and exhibition space.
Specifically, the Educational Plant Survey identified an unmet space need for 292,396 NASF of
Institutional Support, 23,998 NASF of Auditorium/Exhibition, 61,638 NASF of Teaching
Gymnasium, and 502,491 NASF of Study and Instructional Media facilities. These space needs
are only through the year 2009, and do not include functions that are unique to the University of
Florida when compared to other State University System schools such as medical clinics, state
museums and a developmental research K-12 school. Much of the academic support need
identified in the Educational Plant Survey falls under the category of "study" and identifies
shortages in library resources that will be addressed in the Academic/Research Element. The
space need identified in the following table accounts for funded projects under construction in
2004 including the Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Institute, Genetics and Cancer
Research Center, Library West Addition and Renovation, Constans Theater Addition, Welcome
Center/Bookstore, Pharmacy Remodeling, Holland Legal Information Center and Gerson
Hall/Accounting Classroom. The space need reported in the table below is in addition to the
space that is provided by these funded projects. However, the identified space need does not
accurately account for support functions unique to the University of Florida such as medical
clinics, teaching hospital, state museums, P. K. Yonge School and extension activities. These
unique functions require additional support space to serve specific functions not necessarily
related to the Full Time Equivalency enrollment factors in the space needs formula.


PAGE 4-4
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

Comparison of Existing Satisfactory Space with Generated NASF Needs by
Category, 2004-2009

Space Category Generated Need Existing Space Unmet Need
Instructional
Classroom 410,915 381,286 29,629
Teaching Laboratory 563,398 475,888 87,510
Research
Laboratory 1,763,570 1,561,365 202,205
Academic Support
Study 944,962 451,129 493,883
Instructional Media 27,561 18,953 8,608
Auditorium/Exhibition 107,382 83,384 23,998
Teaching Gymnasium 133,154 71,516 61,638
Institutional Support
Student Academic
Support 21,476 2,221 19,255
Office/Computer 2,156,589 1,993,660 162,929
Campus Support Services 306,450 196,238 110,212



II. P. K Yonge Developmental Research School

The P. K. Yonge Developmental Research School (PKY), a unit in the College of Education, was
established in 1934 to be a center of educational innovation for students, K-12. The primary role
of the school is to develop, evaluate and disseminate exemplary programs of education. As
described in the Sidney Martin Developmental Research School Act, the mission of the school is
to serve as a vehicle for research, demonstration and evaluation regarding teaching and learning
while utilizing the resources available on a state university campus. The PKY school's primary
research goal is to enhance instruction in mathematics, science, computer science and foreign
languages in a program that utilizes state of the art educational technology. As a K-12 public
school, PKY is recognized by the State of Florida as its own school district and is eligible for
Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) monies beyond those available to the University of
Florida. The school also is required to maintain an Educational Plant Survey consistent with the
requirements of Chapter 1013.31, Florida Statutes. The school has recently engaged in an update
of its Educational Plant Survey. The space on this K-12 campus is not evaluated in the
University's Educational Plant Survey; however, it is considered a Support/Clinical Land Use in
the campus master plan. Because PKY is designated as a Florida public K-12 school, it is subject
to the class size constitutional amendment to reduce teacher-to-student ratios. This requirement
will create additional space needs at the PKY campus in addition to need created by modest
increases in enrollment that have occurred. The following table presents enrollment trends at
PKY depicting an increase of 208 students (21.6%) between 1997 and 2005. This increase is
partly due to retention of students who are moving through the middle and high school grades,
while the elementary grade enrollment has remained virtually unchanged. The growth also
resulted from an intentional increase in the middle school grades to reach full teaching loads that
support the academic teaching team and accurately reflect typical middle school enrollment (i.e.
110 students per grade rather than 60 students per grade). The school also slightly increased
ninth and tenth grade enrollment to offset the number of upper level high school students who
transfer to dual enrollment program.


PAGE 4-5
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
DATA & ANALYSIS


P. K. Yonge Development Research School Enrollment Trends, 1997-2005
Academic Year School Elementary (K-5) Middle School (6-8) High School (9-12)
(Fall Semester) Total Total Total Total
2005-06 1170 340 344 486
2004-05 1156 348 341 467
2003-04 1172 361 350 461
2002-03 1174 360 356 458
2001-02 1197 357 359 481
2000-01 1036 354 271 411
1999-00 1034 354 255 425
1999-00 1047 359 245 443
1998-99 1025 356 220 449
1998-99 1026 354 219 453
1997-98 967 350 191 426
1997-98 962 349 188 425


III. Campus Master Plan

The Campus Master Plan defines the Support/Clinical Land Use classification as follows:

The \u,1Spi, : Clinical land use classification identifies those areas on campus that are
appropriate for support building development. Accessibility of the site to its customers
i', i,,i public, students, etc.) is a primary location criterion for SyPyI, t Clinical land
use. Allowable uses in \,uiyi, i Clinical areas include administrative, student services,
research support, medical clinics, office and similar non-instructional activities.
Clinical, research support and office functions that require frequent visitor access are
encouraged to locate on the campus perimeter or satellite properties. Ancillary uses
associated with a support facility, such as utilities, service drives, user and disabled
parking, and functional open space are allowed within the \SyyI1, Clinical land use
classification. Development densities, heights and patterns in the \uppi, i Clinical land
use shall respect pedestrian connections, historic context (where applicable), adjacencies
to other land uses and creation offunctional open space while maximizing the efficient
use of building footprints to the extent feasible within construction budgets and program
requirements.

The Future Land Use map for 2005-2015 identifies 168 acres in the Support/Clinical land use
classification. This is an increase of 46 acres from that identified in the previous campus master
plan.

Based on the Campus Master Plan Future Land Use map, the university contained 3,210,143
gross square feet of building space in the Support/Clinical Land Use classification as of
December 2004. At this time, there was also 219,327 gross square feet of space in the Cultural
Land Use classification. The 10-year Capital Projects list includes 712,262 gross square feet of
net new space to be constructed within the Support/Clinical Land Use during in the 10-year plan
horizon. Additionally, it projects another 290,456 gross square feet of net new space with the
Cultural Land Use classification.


PAGE 4-6
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


SUPPORT / CLINICAL FACILITIES
DATA & ANALYSIS


IV. 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

During the period from 2000 through 2004, the University constructed 497,998 gross square feet
of space in the Support land use classification. The amount of support space constructed during
this time period was consistent with that approved in the Campus Development Agreement, 2000-
2010.

The goals, objectives and policies of the Support Facilities Element address the intent to construct
support spaces consistent with need in order to adequately provide the services of administrative,
physical plant, auxiliary and athletics/recreation entities. Additionally, these policies address the
need to maintain inventories, prioritize need and amend the campus master plan's Capital
Improvement Element as required to reflect changing need. By constructing the necessary new
building space, maintaining the Physical Space Files inventory and appropriately amending the
campus master plan, the university has met the goals, objectives and policies related to Support
Facilities.

The only policy statement that was not met during this time period was Policy 1.1 that called for a
study of the relocation/consolidation of the physical plant area north of Radio Road to facilitate
the future conversion of this area to a different land use. While this comprehensive study did not
occur, the Campus Master Plan for 2005-2015 indicates that the majority of the area will remain
in physical plant facilities for the next ten-year period. The western-most portion of the area is
anticipated to begin a transformation to a student housing and services center during the ten-year
period, but few if any existing buildings will be impacted in the near term. Depending upon
housing demand and enrollment trends, this area will be re-examined in the next five-year master
plan update cycle for consideration of further change in use. Meanwhile, the physical plant
administration should explore opportunities to increase efficiency within the existing compound
area and decentralize some functions into service hubs elsewhere on campus.


PAGE 4-7
MARCH 2006








5.
HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


I. Overview
The Department of Housing and Residence Education (also referred to herein as "the Department")
has prepared a Housing Master Plan for the years 2005-2012, updating a previous plan that included a
timeframe through 2010. The Housing Element and Data & Analysis Report for the Campus Master
Plan borrow heavily from this document. The Housing Master Plan was developed by Department
staff and utilizes several guiding principles to give a framework for decision-making.

The Department's mission is to provide well-maintained, community-oriented facilities where
residents and staff are empowered to learn, innovate, and succeed. The Department of Housing and
Residence Education is a self-supporting auxiliary operation that generates income from student rents
and receives no state funding. Therefore, the Department must minimize the time periods that
buildings are taken off-line for renovations, and must manage its supply and demand to avoid vacant
units. The Department also relies on its unique advantages of amenities, convenience, staffing,
security, educational programming and affordability to successfully compete with the private market
housing.

On-campus housing has been a part of the University of Florida since the establishment of the
Gainesville campus. Currently, on-campus housing is available for approximately 22% of the student
population. On-campus housing includes all housing under the University Department of Housing
and Residence Education, as well as those fraternity and sorority houses located on University
property and/or subject to university rules and regulations through property deed restrictions.
Undergraduate student housing is predominantly provided by single student residence halls,
fraternities and sororities. Village Communities serve graduate students and family housing for
students with dependents.

The Future Land Use Element defines the housing land use classification as follows:
Housing: The Housing land use classification identifies those areas on campus that are
appropriate for housing development. Proximity to academic, student services and
student recreation facilities are primary location criteria for Housing land use.
Allowable uses in Housing areas include residence halls, graduate/family village
communities and medical resident complexes. Academic support, student service and
student recreation facilities shall be allowed and encouraged within the Housing land
use classification on conditions that their size, scope and function are related to and
compatible with student housing. Development densities, heights and patterns in the
Housing land use shall respect pedestrian connections, historic context (where
applicable), adjacencies to other land uses and creation offunctional open space while
maximizing the efficient use of building footprints to the extent feasible within
construction budgets and program requirements. Ancillary uses associated with a
housing facility, such as utilities, service drives, user and disabled parking, and
functional open space are allowed within the Housing land use classification.











PAGE 5-1
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


II. Guiding Principles

A. Environmentfor Success
Providing an engaging living environment is important to enable residents to succeed in the
classroom and to grow and develop as individuals. Building a sense of community within the
housing facilities assists with establishing peer support groups among residents. The combination
of peer support groups on campus and support from family and friends significantly increases
resident adjustment and success rates at college. Staff and student leaders build community by
providing opportunities for residents to meet and interact with others. Types of activities include
recreational activities such as intramural sports, social activities, cultural activities, and
educational activities such as programs on health, wellness, safety and security. The Department
promotes an environment for success through these efforts along with roommate matching,
enforcement of rules and regulations and responsive facilities maintenance programs. When
residents demonstrate pride in their communities, there is less damage to facilities, and residents
have the greatest opportunity to reach their personal and educational goals.

B. Residentially-Based Academic Communities
The Department of Housing and Residence Education is committed to integrating the academic
community into the residential experience. Residentially-based academic communities include
the Honors Residential College at Hume Hall, an academically rigorous program; the Weaver
International House, a living/learning center for cultural exchange; the Career Exploration
Community at Graham Hall; East Hall Engineering (opening Fall 2005); and the Fine Arts Living
Learning Community at Reid Hall (opening Fall 2005). Future residentially-based academic
communities will be added through 2012. These communities may include high-technology
classrooms, faculty offices, faculty living space, kitchens, multipurpose rooms, academic
advising space and support, tutorial programs, small group study programs, or club and
organization space. The Department of Housing and Residence Education determines future
residentially-based academic communities through assessment of current programs, resident
satisfaction, national and international trends and best practices shared through the Association of
College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I).

C. Technologies That Enhance Learning
The Department of Housing and Residence Education has spent $7.2 million over the past several
years to provide high-speed Ethernet connection to each resident. Department of Housing and
Residence Education staff is currently developing a technological concept plan to upgrade the
connection to gig-Etheret. Throughout the Department of Housing and Residence Education,
staff is migrating services to higher technologies to provide students enhanced services in support
of learning. Enhanced services include the electronic card access system, online housing
application and credit card payment capabilities, online room transfer process, online room sign-
up (2006), real-time web page updates, personalized administrative e-mails, optical scanning of
records for storage, and computer kiosks with local Internet access in area office lobbies.









PAGE 5-2
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


D. A Diverse Environment
Society is strengthened from the diversity of people and ideas. It is increasingly important that
students are exposed to national and global experiences and perspectives. The Department of
Housing and Residence Education is committed to strengthening the relationships among diverse
people. Staff is committed to maintaining the diversity of the campus community as a reflection
of the UF community and the State of Florida. This is accomplished in part through supporting a
diverse and representative population of residents. Village Communities are represented by
international students from over 75 different countries who make up 87% of the Village
Communities population. Ninety-one percent of these Village Communities residents are graduate
students. Of the over 7,500 single students in residence halls, 67% are White, 15% are African
American, 10% are Hispanic/Latino, and 6% are Asian American.

E. Educational and Social Programming
The Department of Housing and Residence Education supports the educational mission of the
University of Florida. Staff is committed to providing out-of-classroom and classroom-enhancing
learning opportunities, leadership training, community-building experiences, and developmental
transition assistance. Throughout the year, residents and staff actively develop, facilitate, and
coordinate a wide variety of programs in the Village Communities and residence halls. During
the academic year 2004-05, staff scheduled over 265 program events for residents and families in
the Villages Communities and over 2,900 programs for residence hall occupants. Residence hall
educational programs include a variety of topics on health, safety, diversity and personal
responsibility including information about recycling, drug/alcohol abuse prevention, and off-
campus housing responsibility for students who may be considering a transition out of campus
housing. In the Village Communities, offerings include coffee houses, art exhibits and children's
programs.

F. Demand for Residence Hall and Village Communities Space
The following policies serve to guide the offer of campus housing to eligible students and the
philosophical future direction of the campus housing program:

1. Currently, campus housing is available for approximately 22% of the enrolled Gainesville
campus student population. Campus housing includes all residence facilities under the
direction of the University of Florida Department of Housing and Residence Education as
well as those fraternity and sorority houses administered by the University of Florida
Division of Student Affairs. Only full-time students are eligible for campus housing.
2. For four of the last five years, despite ever-changing enrollment figures, the Department
of Housing and Residence Education has been able to offer summer and fall housing
agreements to all first-year students who requested to live on campus.
3. The demand for campus space in Village Communities (graduate and family housing)
fluctuates throughout the year for our 980 apartments. Because of this, we have
implemented an on-line and walk-in application process. To be eligible to live in Village
Communities, a student must meet specific qualifications.







PAGE 5-3
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


G. Assessment, Evaluation and Benchmarking
The Department of Housing and Residence Education staff is committed to the continued growth
and development of staff and the housing program. Ongoing assessment, evaluation, and
benchmarking instruments are administered to staff and residents to determine progress toward
intentional goals. Department of Housing and Residence Education staff utilizes data from
satisfaction and performance-based research to create or revise programs that provide enhanced
service to residents. The Coordinator of Research Programs and Services relays results of
assessment, evaluation, and benchmarking instruments to internal and external audiences.

H. Supportive and Friendly Service
The Department of Housing and Residence Education has a strong commitment to providing
quality customer service. To meet this commitment, every full time employee has attended
customer service training. As new employees are hired, they attend customer service training
within 90 days of employment. Customer service training includes information about and
expectations related to the mission statement, professional demeanor, and dealing with difficult
customers as well as provides information on resident demographics. A variety of ongoing staff
programs are coordinated and planned through the Department of Housing and Residence
Education Learning and Development Office.

I. Value-Added Facilities to Support Varying Budgets and Lifestyles
The Department of Housing and Residence Education is committed to providing a wide range of
facility types and programs to meet the varying needs of residents. In single student housing,
these types of rooms are available: singles, doubles, triples, apartments, and suites for 1-5
persons. Special interest housing is available to address the following areas: contractual
visitation; co-ed or single gender floors; quiet floors; Honors housing, leadership/ scholarship;
wellness; and community service. In Village Communities, these types of apartments are
available: efficiencies; furnished and unfurnished apartments; one bedroom apartments; two
bedroom apartments; and townhouse apartments. Rooms and apartments are in facilities that
range in age from the historic Murphree Area residences (Buckman/Thomas Halls, 1905) through
the facilities constructed in the 1950s and 1960s as well as four new facilities constructed in 1991
(Keys Residential Complex), 1995 (Springs Residential Complex), 2000 (Lakeside Residential
Complex) and 2002 (Honors Residential College). Rental rates vary in residence halls from the
lowest rates in non-air conditioned rooms to standard rooms in air conditioned residence halls to
air conditioned apartments or suites in the newest facilities. Rental rates in Village Communities
range from efficiencies to townhouse apartments.

J. Leadership Opportunities
Department of Housing and Residence Education staff support and provide numerous
opportunities for student leadership development. Through voluntary and paid opportunities,
students are better able to develop skills in communication, problem solving, decision making,
teamwork, time management, and confrontation. Recent published research has indicated how
living on campus is an increased benefit to the student experience through involvement in
leadership development.

Volunteer opportunities within the Department of Housing and Residence Education include
membership in several organizations such as the Inter-Residence Hall Association, National
Residence Hall Honorary, Mayor's Council, National Association for College and University
Residence Halls, International Honorary of Leaders in University Apartment Communities, and

PAGE 5-4
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

area governments and councils. Leadership opportunities within these groups include election or
selection as executive board members, hall presidents and Mayor's Council members.

The Department of Housing and Residence Education provides paid leadership opportunities to
approximately 400 students. These positions include Graduate Hall Directors, Crisis Intervention
Consultants, Resident Assistants, Residential College Advisers, Resident Managers, Desk
Assistants, Desk Managers, DHNet Help Assistants, Lifeguards, Furniture Movers, Student
Office Assistants, and Security Assistants.


III. Sorority and Fraternity Facilities Management
The Department of Housing and Residence Education has provided facility management
consultation to the Greek community for the past few years. In 2004, conversations between
Student Affairs, the Dean of Students Office, and the Department of Housing and Residence
Education resulted in more involved participation. The Department of Housing and Residence
Education entered into an agreement to coordinate the sprinkler installation and renovation of a
fraternity. This successful pilot project resulted in savings of thousands of dollars for the
fraternity by using Department of Housing and Residence Education staff to coordinate the
project.

Summer 2005, the Department of Housing and Residence Education coordinated the sprinkler
installation in three sororities. This package approach to sprinkler installation again resulted in
tremendous savings for the sororities. These sororities also used the opportunity to have
Department of Housing and Residence Education staff coordinate additional extensive renovation
of houses beyond the sprinkler installation. Department of Housing and Residence Education
staff continues to accommodate these needs into the overall plans for each facility.

In 2005, the University of Florida Foundation, working with the Division of Student Affairs,
voted to provide $1.2 million in loans to each of the remaining 14 Greek houses in order to
facilitate the installation of sprinklers in the facilities by the end of Summer 2006. The
Department of Housing and Residence Education has hired a Building Construction Inspector to
coordinate the installation of all the sprinkler projects and associated renovations in Greek
houses. This partnership brings immediate resolution to a difficult situation installing fire
sprinklers in Greek houses while saving thousands of student dollars.

Discussions will continue as to how the Department of Housing and Residence Education can be
involved in the facility management of Greek facilities beyond the Summer 2006 completion of
sprinkler installations.


IV. Partnerships
The Department of Housing and Residence Education has developed several key partnerships during
the past few years and will continue to foster partnerships with other University of Florida academic
and support operations. These partnerships maximize the resources of involved units while providing
coordinated services or programs to students. The Department of Housing and Residence
Education continues to develop partnerships to advance services and programs to students.





PAGE 5-5
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


A. Accommodated Testing Center in Reid Hall
To support the Dean of Students Office, the Department of Housing and Residence Education
leases square footage in Reid Hall and managed the Summer/Fall 2005 renovation of that space to
provide for a University of Florida Accommodated Testing Center. This space allows for all
University students who need assistance or accommodations for testing to go to a central location
in Reid Hall. Currently, these services have no consistent testing facility designed for the
accommodated needs of students. The Center provides enough space for all Students with
Disabilities staff to be located in the Center.

B. Office ofAcademic Technology
To support the Office of Academic Technology (AT), the Department of Housing and Residence
Education leases space in Broward Hall. In 2005, the former Broward cafeteria was renovated
into tutoring, office, and studio space for AT's expansion of services. Additionally, the
Department of Housing and Residence Education provides to AT a dedicated television channel
on a closed cable TV system. Students watch live, online tutoring, video class replays, and other
academic support programming throughout the week.

C. Student Health Care Center Corry Clinic
To support additional health care services for women and children, the Department of Housing
and Residence Education provides renovated space in Corry Village for a health care clinic.
Students and their children can arrange appointments or walk-in to see health care providers for
their needs without traveling across campus to the main Student Health Care Center.

D. University of Florida Police Department
To support the space needs of the University of Florida Police Department (UFPD), the Department
of Housing and Residence Education leases renovated space in the Jennings Annex to UFPD. This
space supports the records division, the community service division, and victim advocates and
includes a large classroom for instructing students and staff on topics related to personal, property, or
public safety.

E. Wellness Programs
To support the concept of living well, the Department of Housing and Residence Education
provides renovated space in Springs Residential Complex and in Jennings Hall for the Living
Well programs. Students may utilize the services provided for stress reduction, time management,
and other consulting services. The staff are provided by the Student Health Care Center as part of
the campus-wide GatorWell program.


V. Off-Campus Housing Markets
The Department of Housing and Residence Education possesses a very intentional occupancy
management plan. Residence hall facilities and Village Communities must be at 100% occupancy
to fully realize the budget and to maximize space utilization. As enrollment of graduate students
increases, Department of Housing and Residence Education staff must analyze the long term
impact and plan for new construction. Residence Halls and Village Communities are constructed
to be viable facilities for many years versus solutions to short-term enrollment spikes.




PAGE 5-6
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


Over the past 14 years, the Department of Housing and Residence Education has razed 700 beds
while constructing four additional residential complexes that added a net increase of 2,031 beds
to the system. Fall opening occupancy has continued to average 102-103%.

In 2000, 4,200 beds were under construction or planned for the private off-campus Gainesville
market. During the preceding seven years, approximately 7,000 beds were added to the off-
campus Gainesville market. In recent years, a few hundred condominiums have been constructed
in the Gainesville urbanized area targeting the student market. Within the University of Florida
Context Area alone, 705 multi-family residential units were permitted by the City of Gainesville
during the City's fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The location of these developments is depicted on a
map at the end of this report.

Multi-family Residential Permits in the UF Context Area, City of Gainesville FY2003
& 2004
Number
Project Name Location of Units Type of Units
10th Street Historic Apartments 608 SW 10th St 12 Apartment
Archer Lane Apartments 3047 SW Archer Rd 8 Apartment
Archer Road Condominiums 2373 SW Archer Rd 40 Condominiums
Arlington Square Apartments 212 NW 1st St 28 Apartment
Bivens Forest condominiums 1400 SW 25th PI 12 Condominiums
Campus View II Apartments 975 SW 13th St 25 Apartment
Charleston Place Condominiums 1600 Block NW 23rd Ave 36 Condominiums
Eagles Landing Apartments 1400 Block SW 25th PI 8 Apartment
Estates at Sorority Row 811 SW 11th St 24 Apartment
Garland Condominiums 1000 Block NW 21st Ave 37 Condominiums
Lofts Oasis 2595 SW 35th PI 39 Apartment
Mallorca Apartments 528 NW 39th Rd 26 Apartment
Mallorca II Apartments 514 NW 39th Rd 12 Apartment
Oaks Apartments 6519 W Newberry Rd 48 Apartment
Oxford Terrace I Apartments 835 SW 9th St 36 Apartment
Oxford Terrace II Apartments 921 SW Depot Ave 48 Apartment
Palm Villas Apartments 4203 SW 31st Dr 6 Apartment
Southwood Apartments 3900 Block SW 26th Ter 16 Apartment
St Charles Apartments 1418 NW 3rd Ave 16 Apartment
Taylor Square Apartments 621 SW 10th St 23 Apartment
Visions Apartments 1018 SW 8th Ave 7 Apartment
Arnold Apts 1125 SW 5th Ave 6 Muti-Family
Hampton Oaks 122 to 140 SW 62nd St 162 Muti-Family
Heritage Oaks 117-223 NW 12th Ter 16 Muti-Family
Phoenix Phase II 3214 SW 24th Way 6 Muti-Family
Serenola Manor #2 3702 SW 28th Ter 4 Muti-Family
Serenola Manor #2 3512 SW 28th Ter 4 Muti-Family
Total 705

The off-campus Gainesville high-density student market is now overbuilt, with most complexes
running at 75-80% occupancy. In recent years, even complexes that historically have been at
100% occupancy are running in the 90% range. The off-campus market builds in response to UF


PAGE 5-7
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

enrollment spikes and provides many challenges including rent "wars" and increased offerings of
amenities. Off-campus rental rates have plunged; no security deposit programs have been
introduced; and free amenities such as televisions, microwaves, and free rent have been initiated
as enticements to attract students.

Department of Housing and Residence Education staff has responded by aggressively marketing
campus housing, particularly in the summer when there are fewer students in the Gainesville
market. The Department of Housing and Residence Education continues to provide many
amenities that the off-campus market is not able or willing to provide. Campus housing benefits
and amenities continue to attract students seeking the collegiate experience when they arrive at
the University of Florida.


VI. Facility Needs Analysis

A. Occupancy Management
Nearly 70% of fall residence hall spaces are reserved for first-time enrolled UF students, typically
freshmen who begin classes during Summer B Term or Fall Semester. The housing "lottery"
system, which has been in existence since 1976, consistently assures that only 30% of fall
semester residents are continuing students. Continuing students are residents who lived on
campus the spring semester prior to the beginning of a new academic year and typically represent
students who are sophomore, junior, senior and graduate students.

Although the demand for campus housing from continuing students exceeded the designated
allotment of spaces during the lottery's early years, the demand has only slightly exceeded the
allotment for the past several years. Based in part on enrollment trends and the likelihood of a
continued glut of available off-campus housing options, Department of Housing and Residence
Education staff expects the demand for campus housing from continuing students to remain
relatively stable for the next several years. Within the next few years, new technologies will make
the process of securing campus housing seamless.

With these occupancy management strategies in place, the University has been able increase the
percentage of all freshmen housed on campus and to accommodate all of the housing demand for
first-time enrolled freshmen in recent years. As a percent of all on-campus housing residents,
freshmen represented 72.9% of all residents in Fall 2004 compared to 63.4% of all residents in
Fall 2000. In the fall of 2002, 90% of first-time enrolled freshmen were housed on campus. In
the fall of 2003, 80% of first-time enrolled freshmen desired to live in on-campus housing, and
for the second year in a row all of these requests were accommodated. This phenomenon
continued in the fall of 2004 when, again, all first-time enrolled freshmen that requested on-
campus housing were accommodated.

The following table displays the classification of students living in housing for single students
(i.e. Residence Halls) and family/graduate students (i.e. Village Communities). Over the past
four years, the occupancy management strategies have resulted in notable increases in lower
division students living in single student housing and in graduate students living in graduate
housing.





PAGE 5-8
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

On-Campus Housing Residents by Student Classification, 2000-2004

Student Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Students in Single Student Housing
Freshmen 63.4% 66.4% 71.0% 71.5% 72.9%
Sophomore 19.7% 18.1% 15.1% 16.6% 16.0%
Junior 9.8% 9.1% 8.5% 7.3% 7.1%
Senior 6.5% 6.1% 5.0% 4.3% 3.8%
Graduate 6.0% 3.0% 4.0% 2.0% 1.0%
Students in Family and Graduate Student Housing
Undergraduate 11.9% 9.7% 8.3% 6.6% 7.4%
Graduate 87.6% 89.7% 90.9% 92.2% 91.2%
Post Baccalaureate 2.0% 3.0% 2.2% 4.4% 1.0%

Fall Semester. The challenge for future fall semesters is to optimize the allotment of fall campus
housing spaces in residence halls reserved for first-time enrolled UF students. In order to reach
this optimization, the Department of Housing and Residence Education is only part the
enrollment management equation wherein admission and housing yields are inexorably co-
dependent.

Only with direct and frequent conversations with other agencies involved in enrollment
management will the Department of Housing and Residence Education staff be able to optimize
future new student bed space. With the previous rolling admission system, comparability to
previous fall semesters was a necessary and reliable tool. Until a few years ago, Department of
Housing and Residence Education staff and Admissions Office staff were able to leverage the
enrollment/housing patterns by relatively undisturbed longitudinal data. The Department of
Housing and Residence Education is no longer in that position. Admissions policies and
procedures continue to be revised and modified. Housing staff continue to enhance collaborative
efforts with staff from Admissions, the Honors Program, and Dean of Students Office as well as
AIM Committee members and University Athletic Association Staff

Spring Semester. The occupancy/enrollment management challenges for spring semester are
different than for fall semester. For spring semester, staff continues to give first priority for
available spaces to freshmen and transfer students. Offers of housing are made to virtually all
applicants for spring who apply to and are admitted to UF in a timely manner.

On average, 200-400 beds are turned over between fall and spring semesters. The spring waiting
list is necessary to allow enough time for final admission decisions for new admit students; to
process spring cancellations for eligible continuing residents; and to offer priority assignments for
continuing residents returning to campus housing from internships or other similar academic
experiences.

Summer Terms. In the summer, typically one-third of the residence hall facilities are available
for student housing, one-third are available for conference housing, and one-third are closed for
major renovations or because they are not air conditioned. Historically, between 600 and 700
students are housed on campus during Summer A. Most Summer A residents are continuing
students; less than 20 percent represent new admit freshmen or transfer students. Adequate spaces
exist during Summer A to meet the student and conference housing demand.



PAGE 5-9
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

Through Summer B 2005, the Department of Housing and Residence Education was able to
accommodate all requests for Summer B housing. Typically, between 2,500 and 3,000 students
are housed in residence halls during Summer B.

Village Communities. Ongoing waiting lists for Village Communities apartments have existed
for over two decades. The fall semester waiting list is usually longer than the spring or summer
waiting lists. The single graduate student waiting list is typically longer than the family waiting
list.

Prior to 1997, Schucht Village was designated solely for single graduate students. Schucht
Village was closed to students and the property was transferred to Shands. The loss of Schucht
Village and a decline in the number of families applying for Village Communities drove the
decision to make single graduate students eligible for one bedroom and efficiency apartments in
all villages instead of limiting assignment to Schucht Village. Since this assignment policy
change, the single graduate student demand has steadily increased.

Graduate enrollment is expected to continue to increase for the next few years. Much of the
additional housing demand for graduate students may be satisfied by the off-campus market
which is overbuilt at this time with more new construction planned. Additionally, the projected
decline in non-degree seeking students and post-baccalaureate students should in part compensate
for the growth in graduate enrollment when percentage comparisons are made between UF total
enrollment and the number of campus residents. In response to these factors, the Department of
Housing and Residence Education has initiated a facility assessment of Corry Village in order to
decide the best approach to add additional apartment units.

B. Existing Facility Inventory
Supply and Demand. The housing supply on campus increased by 337 units from 1994 to 1999,
and another 483 units between 1999 and 2004 for a total of 820 new units in ten years. These
increases were the result of new construction and renovations that increased space efficiency.
During this period, increases in on-campus headcount enrollment resulted in a decrease in the
percent of students housed on campus. While the on-campus housing supply grew by 9%
between 1994 and 2004, the on-campus headcount enrollment grew by 29%. However, the
appropriate housing supply for university students is dependent upon other trends within the
enrollment demographics. Graduate and professional students are generally less likely to seek
on-campus housing. Among these students, international and other cost-conscious students find
on-campus housing to be a critical affordable housing alternative. Other graduate and
professional students prefer off-campus housing due to considerations of spouse, children or other
preferences. Unclassified students, primarily consisting of non-degree students such as
employees and post-baccalaureate students are not typically candidates for on-campus housing.
In 2004, there were 1,465 unclassified students who fit this profile. In the undergraduate student
ranks, first-time enrolled freshmen receive highest priority for housing and have been
accommodated in recent years without waiting lists. As students matriculate to upper division
classes, they are also less likely to seek on-campus housing. The Department of Housing and
Residence Education generally assumes that 10.5% of the total university enrollment includes
students who are not targets for on-campus housing. The plentiful supply of off-campus student
housing in the Gainesville area is a significant influence in the demand for on-campus housing
that must be considered so that the university does not overbuild for its own demand.




PAGE 5-10
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


Housing Capacity and Main Campus Headcount Enrollment, 1994-2004
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Capacity of
UF Housing 9,208 9,616 9,677 9,562 9,560 9,545 9,405 9,386 10,023 10,030 10,028
Headcount
Enrollment --
Main Campus 34,927 35,756 36,134 37,637 38,882 39,742 43,511 44,079 44,894 45,210 45,126
Percent of
Main Campus
Students
Housed at
Full Capacity 26% 27% 27% 25% 25% 24% 22% 21% 22% 22% 22%
NOTE: In 2004, part of Murphree Hall was closed for renovations, but that is not reflected in this inventory
since it was a temporary condition.

Occupancy and Capacity of Campus Housing, Fall Semesters, 1994-2004

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Occupancy of Conventional Residence Halls
Women 3,564 3,725 3,798 3,982 3,988 3,928 3,882 3,708 4,202 4,310 4,055
Men 2,978 3,104 2,995 2,914 2,924 2,977 2,971 3,028 3,224 3,140 3,192
Subtotal 6,542 6,829 6,793 6,896 6,912 6,905 6,853 6,736 7,426 7,450 7,247
Expanded Capacity of Conventional Residence Halls (equals standard capacity plus temporary
triples)
6,635 7,006 6,973 6,962 6,960 6,945 6,805 6,864 7,551 7,558 7,346

Occupancy of Graduate and Family Housing
Students 1,167 1,227 1,227 1,227 1,227 1,071 1,094 1,041 905 909 955
Spouses/
Children 1,346 1,346 1,346 1,346 1,346 1,184 1,000 739 852 856 855
Subtotal 2,513 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,255 2,094 1,780 1,757 1,765 1,810
Graduate and Family Housing Units
1,052 1,084 1,084 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 980

Capacity of Non-Greek UF Housing (equals expanded capacity of residence halls plus
grad/family housing units)
7,687 8,090 8,057 7,942 7,940 7,925 7,785 7,844 8,531 8,538 8,326

Greek UF Housinc
Sorority
Capacity 733 733 740 740 740 740 740 692 692 692 720
Fraternity
Capacity 788 793 880 880 880 880 880 850 800 800 770
Capacity of Greek UF Housing
1,521 1,526 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,542 1,492 1,492 1,490


PAGE 5-11
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Capacity of UF Housing
9,208 9,616 9,677 9,562 9,560 9,545 9,405 9,386 10,023 10,030 9,816
Total Headcount Enrollment
39,024 39,951 40,373 42,053 43,444 44,405 46,107 46,798 48,184 48,763 48,765
Headcount Enrollment on Main Campus
34,927 35,756 36,134 37,637 38,882 39,742 43,511 44,079 44,894 45,210 45,126
Percent of Main Campus Students Housed at Full Capacity
26% 27% 27% 25% 25% 24% 22% 21% 22% 22% 22%
NOTE: In 1995, the Springs Residential Complex came on line. By 1997, most of Schucht Village was
razed with one building reassigned to Shands. In 2000, part of old Hume was open as Lakeside Residential
Complex came on line. Then old Hume was razed late fall. In 2002, the Honors Residential College at
Hume Hall came on line. In 2004, part of Murphree Hall was closed for renovations.


Occupancy and Capacity of Campus Housing, Fall Semesters, 1994-2004

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Undergraduate
Enrollment 27,305 28,457 28,887 30,318 30,839 31,124 32,260 32,644 33,348 33,742 33,418
Expanded
Capacity of
Conventional
Residence Halls 6,635 7,006 6,973 6,962 6,960 6,945 6,805 6,864 7,551 7,558 7,558
Greek UF
Housing 1,521 1,526 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,542 1,492 1,492 1,490
Capacity of
Undergraduate
Housing 8,156 8,532 8,593 8,582 8,580 8,565 8,425 8,406 9,043 9,050 9,048
Percent of
Undergraduate
Students
Housed at Full
Capacity 30% 30% 30% 28% 28% 28% 26% 26% 27% 27% 27%

Graduate
Enrollment 9,303 9,113 9,251 9,614 10,410 11,216 11,953 12,348 12,902 13,482 13,882
Student
Occupancy of
Graduate and
Family Housing 1,167 1,227 1,227 1,227 1,227 1,071 1,094 1,041 905 909 955
Percent of
Graduate
Students
Housed 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 10% 9% 8% 7% 7% 7%

Peer Institutions. Data was collected on the percentage of main campus enrollment housed on-
campus at several peer institutions, including those that have ranked higher than the University of
Florida in the list of top seventeen public universities. Several universities were also chosen for
comparison because of their similarly large enrollment. In this analysis, the University of Florida was
found to be firmly in the middle of the listing in terms of the percentage of students housed on


PAGE 5-12
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


campus. Several of the universities with higher on-campus housing percentages had significantly
lower total enrollment than UF. Parameters for campus housing vary widely from one institution to
another including variations in the inclusion/exclusion of Greek housing or the presence of graduate
and family housing in the campus housing inventory. Each university is also uniquely positioned in
relation to the local off-campus housing market in terms of housing supply and cost. These factors
greatly influence the quantity and type of on-campus housing stock appropriate to each university.

Percentage of Students Housed On-Campus at Peer Institutions
Main Campus Number of Percent of
Headcount Students Housed Students Housed
Institution Name Enrollment On Campus On Campus

Michigan State University 44,836 17,300 39%
University of California at
Irvine 24,919 9,500 38%
Georgia Institute of
Technology 17,115 6,500 38%
University of California at
San Diego 24,455 8,598 35%

University of Virginia 19,529 6,633 34%

Penn State University 41,289 13,959 34%
University of California at
Santa Barbara 19,799 6,300 32%
University of Michigan at
Ann Arbor 39,533 12,562 32%
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign 40,360 12,765 32%
University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill 26,800 7,700 29%

University of Georgia 33,405 7,501 22%

University of Florida 45,126 10,028 22%
University of Wisconsin at
Madison 41,169 8,950 22%
University of California at
Davis 30,065 6,107 20%

University of Arizona 36,932 6,123 17%

Florida State University 38,000 5,900 16%
University of Texas at
Austin* 47,444 7,177 15%

University of Washington 39,199 5,553 14%
NOTE: University of Texas at Austin reported 6,500 undergraduate students housed on campus and 677
graduate student apartment units available. The actual number of students housed on campus may be higher
than reported due to married students sharing one graduate student unit. Caution should be used when
comparing any of these figures since enrollment and housing data are uniquely reported by each institution.
Every attempt was made to ensure comparable data reporting, but that cannot be guaranteed.


PAGE 5-13
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


Campus Housing Density. An analysis was conducted on the density of housing units for on-
campus residential complexes. The site acreage was estimated based on the building footprints and
associated service areas, immediate parking and landscaped areas. The analysis measured both
dwelling units per acre and occupants per acre.

Clearly, residence halls provide the most housing capacity per site or building footprint because the
complexes tend to be more compact and the dwelling units tend to be smaller with two or three
occupants per unit. The residence halls average over 88 dwelling units per acre while the Village
Communities average 18 dwelling units per acre. Occupancy in residence halls is typically two
persons per dwelling unit. Newer residence halls, such as Lakeside and Keys, are constructed at a
much lower density than residence halls built through the 1960's.
Occupancy in Village Communities fluctuates with variations in the number of dependents living in
family housing; however, the Village Communities average 1.7 persons per dwelling unit and 580
gross square feet per person including common areas and ingress/egress. These communities are built
at lower densities than residence halls and average 18 dwelling units per acre. This is due, in part, to
the additional on-site amenities such as proximate parking and playgrounds that are typical in family
housing. Graduate and family housing also require a very different floor plan than undergraduate
housing, and are similar to typical off-campus apartments. The university has not built any new
Village Communities since the early 1970's, but there are opportunities to increase the density of
these complexes through future reconstruction and new development projects.

Density of Development for On-Campus Housing, 2004
Dwelling Units Occupants
Residence Hall Year Built Site Acreage per Acre per Acre
Beaty Towers 1967 1.32 151.52 596.21
Broward 1954 2.03 160.10 339.90
Buckman, Fletcher,
Sledd, Thomas 1905-1939 3.51 107.69 184.90
East, North,
Riker/South, Tolbert,
Weaver 1950-1961 5.4 96.30 184.44
Graham 1961 1.46 71.92 149.32
Hume 2002 4.25 42.12 143.06
Jennings 1961 3.31 74.92 157.10
Keys 1991 5.7 18.77 73.51
Lakeside 2000 7.32 18.44 72.13
Mallory, Reid, Yulee 1950 2.68 101.49 194.03
Murphree 1939 1.69 101.18 209.47
Rawlings 1958 1.27 138.58 286.61
Simpson, Trusler 1961 1.88 113.30 230.32
Springs 1995 4.14 35.99 114.98
Average
Residence Halls __3.28 88.02 209.71


PAGE 5-14
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


NOTE: Some complexes were combined for this analysis. For example, Mallory, Reid and
analyzed and mapped as one complex.


Yulee halls were


C. Facility Needs Inventory
New Capacity. Looking ahead to the year 2015, the university anticipates an on-campus
headcount enrollment of 49,500 students. The university would need to construct 835 new
housing units in the next ten years to maintain the current 22% of on-campus headcount
enrollment in campus housing. To raise the percentage of students housed on campus would
require significantly more housing construction than anticipated or than will likely be supported
by demand. As a function of percentages, an increase of 1% would require nearly doubling of the
level of construction in the ten-year period. An increase of 2% in students housed on campus
would require nearly three times the anticipated construction effort necessary to maintain existing
housing occupancy.

Projected Housing Need at Variable Percentage of Headcount Enrollment, 2005-2015
Anticipated 10-YR Projected Need 10-Yr Projected Need 10-YR
Actual Construction at New at 23% New at 25% New
Units* Units* Units*
2005- 2005- 2005-
2000 2004 2008 2015 2015 2008 2015 2015 2008 2015 2015
Capacity of
UF Housing 9,405 10,028 10,263 10,863 10,741 11,385 11,675 12,375
New Units 623 235 600 835 713 644 1,357 1,647 700 2,347
Headcount
Enrollment
- Main
Campus 43,511 45,126 46,700 49,500 46,700 49,500 46,700 49,500
Percent of
Students
Housed at
Full
Capacity 22% 22% 22% 22% 23% 23% 25% 25%
Note: Housing units as used herein identify the capacity of student housing. For graduate and family
housing this may be one or two students per unit. For undergraduate housing, this would be two beds per
unit plus temporary triples.

Increased housing capacity between 2005 and 2008 is anticipated to result from modifications at
Corry Village, a reconstruction of the Delta Delta Delta Sorority House and modifications to


PAGE 5-15
MARCH 2006


Dwelling Units Occupants
Residence Hall Year Built Site Acreage per Acre per Acre
Village
Communities
Corry 1958 11.21 19.27 33.33
Diamond 1965 10.71 19.42 33.60
Maguire 1971 16.18 13.60 23.52
University 1972 6.27 20.41 35.32
Tanglewood 1973 13.04 15.95 27.60
Average
- Village
Communities 11.482 17.73 30.67






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

other Greek houses on campus. Corry Village is slated to undergo an evaluation to determine the
best approach for adding 200 new units, either through renovations and additions or a complete
raze and reconstruct scenario. From 2008 to 2015, housing capacity increases will result from
construction of graduate family housing on Radio Road and other changes to Greek housing. The
2005-2015 Future Land Use and Future Building Sites maps identify locations for a new Greek
house, additional graduate and family housing villages, and new undergraduate residence halls
that can be constructed as justified by demand. The maps also suggest a future change of land
use at the site of the existing Diamond Village, which is anticipated to be displaced by future
academic/research facilities and relocated to the west side of campus. The relocation of Diamond
Village is not anticipated in the next ten years, but the campus master plan recognizes the need to
begin planning for this change. These identified future housing sites will give the Department of
Housing and Residence Education flexibility to respond to changing enrollment, student
demographics, and off-campus housing supply. In general, campus housing projects will strive to
improve the efficiency of land use by increasing the density of housing units in new construction
and through projects such as modifications to Corry Village and relocation/reconstruction of
Diamond Village.

Locations for future housing are identified on the map depicting Future Building Sites by Future Land
Use, Figure 2-2 of the Future Land Use Element. These locations identify infill opportunities for
undergraduate housing adjacent to existing residence halls, and envision higher density developments
comparable to that of the 1950's and early 1960's residential construction. Locations for future
graduate and family housing projects identify opportunities for new Village Communities in
proximity to existing Village Communities, student recreation, and future student support services
along Radio Road that begin to define a significant neighborhood of graduate family living.

Upgrades and Renovations. The Department of Housing and Residence Education maintains 43
residence halls with 1,829,459 square feet of space housing 7,552 single students; 25
administrative buildings with 158,430 square feet; and 87 buildings in Village Communities with
980 apartments and 842,120 square feet of space housing 1,810 residents. The oldest residential
facilities are Buckman and Thomas Halls built in 1905; the newest facility is the Honors
Residential College at Hume Hall built in 2002. The average age of facilities is 48.6 years. It is an
ongoing challenge to plan the routine and deferred maintenance for these facilities, including
planning for capital projects. Capital projects are major renovation projects beyond the scope of
routine or deferred maintenance projects.

Department of Housing and Residence Education staff has identified high priority capital projects
that provide increased safety for residents and appropriate facilities for students today and in the
future. These projects include fire sprinkler installations, increased shower drains, bathroom
renovations, basic upgrades, code compliance changes, and other enhancements related to
amenities to remain competitive with the off-campus market. While these are the high priority
capital projects for housing facilities, this is not a comprehensive list of all maintenance and
deferred maintenance needs for all the buildings within the Department of Housing and
Residence Education purview.

Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Systems. These projects address the need to provide fire
sprinklers in single student residence halls. In conjunction with sprinkler installations,
fire alarm system upgrades are planned to support the sprinkler controls as well as to
provide for the replacement of aging components.

Electrical Support for Sprinkler Installations. Some electrical services and

PAGE 5-16
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HOUSING
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

distribution systems will require improvement in order to support the installation of fire
sprinkler pumps and rooftop air handling units. These projects also are incorporated into
other projects due to engineering standards reflecting "life expectancy" analysis.

Flooring Removal and Replacement. These projects represent opportunities to address
facility upgrades in coordination with other capital projects. These projects are high
visibility to residents.

Bathroom Renovations. Bathroom renovation projects include the complete demolition
of walls, floors, ceilings, piping and ventilation equipment. The plumbing consists of
increasing shower drains, replacing domestic water lines, replacing sanitary waste lines as
well as all plumbing fixtures, doors and partitions. These projects are of high visibility to
residents.

Domestic Water Line Replacement. Over the years, existing domestic water mains
currently feeding the buildings have become filled with mineral deposits to the extent that
the water supplies are becoming insufficient for needs. Water pressure and flow is
decreased. Decreased water pressure and flow from mineral deposits plus, the continued
construction of new buildings tapping existing water mains, have reduced the overall
water pressure to the extent that in some instances, flush valves will not function. These
projects replace water mains.

Window Removal and Replacement. Currently the windows in residence facilities are
casement style with single pane glass and little or no weather stripping. This replacement
project will provide new, single hung, aluminum frame windows with energy efficient
insulated glass. The windows are designed to provide secondary means of egress in
compliance with NFPA Life Safety Codes.


VII. 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal

Most policies of the Housing Element for the Campus Master Plan, 2000-2010, relate to the
University's ongoing monitoring, maintenance and expansion of campus housing. During the
period 2000-2004, the University increased on-campus housing by 623 units. However, the
housing expansion was not able to meet the intent of Policy 1.1 to increase the percentage of
students housed on campus from 22% to 25%. The University was able to maintain this
percentage at 22% while main campus headcount enrollment grew by almost 4%. In recent years,
the University has found that this 22% target seems to be the point at which supply and demand
are at equilibrium and the university experiences neither long waiting lists nor high vacancies.

The location of new housing during this period was consistent with Policy 2.1, which
recommends proximity to academic areas. In fact, the Department of Housing and Residence
Education has successfully initiated a number of programs that bring academic activities into the
housing complexes. This Department has also been diligent in conducting annual occupancy
reviews, maintenance management and ongoing expansion of student programs within campus
housing. The Department has prepared an updated its own Housing Master Plan that includes
occupancy management, funding and business plan components.




PAGE 5-17
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


HOUSING
DATA & ANALYSIS


Policies included under Objective 3.0 addressed housing occupancy management, which has been
successful as demonstrated by the increase of first-time enrolled students in Residence Halls and
the increase of family and graduate students in the Village Complexes.

All housing construction projects are reviewed by the Facilities Planning and Land Use
Committee, Preservation of Historic Buildings and Sites Committee, Transportation and Parking
Committee, and Lakes, Vegetation and Landscaping Committee as well as the Physical Plant
Division and the Environmental Health and Safety Office. In this way, polices related to facility
design, ADA-accessibility and historic preservation are ensured. At least one significant upgrade
of a historic residence hall was accomplished during this period in collaboration with the State
Division of Historical Resources.

Goal 2 of the Housing Element, addressed the need for collaboration between the University, City
of Gainesville, Alachua County and single-family residential areas near campus. During 2002,
the University formed a Town-Gown Task Force with diverse representation to examine
measures that could be taken to preserve the single-family residential neighborhoods in the
University Context Area. A number of initiatives have been implemented from these
recommendations, and implementation and monitoring are ongoing. Additionally, the University
has participated in discussions of the Community Redevelopment Agency's College
Park/University Heights Advisory Board and the City's Economic Development and
University/College Committee related to housing and development near the University.


PAGE 5-18
MARCH 2006








6.
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


I. Overview

A. Department of Recreational Sports
The Department of Recreational Sports is a department of the Division of Student Affairs. Their
mission is to provide an extensive array of leisure and recreational opportunities for students,
faculty and staff. Emphasis is placed on providing a safe environment while enhancing quality of
life through activities that promote sportsmanship, leadership opportunities and the development
of a life-long pattern of recreational activity. By providing opportunities through structured
activities for leadership, socialization, self-actualization and enjoyment, the Department
contributes to the educational mission of the University and strives to enhance the quality of life
for each student. In this contribution, the department also coordinates closely with the College of
Health and Human Performance to provide use of facilities for teaching purposes and to provide
employment, internships and other work experience to students seeking careers in sports and
leisure activities. The Department of Recreational Sports is overseen by a Board of Directors
consisting of students, faculty and staff.

The Department of Recreational Sports operates approximately 143,000 gross square feet of
indoor recreation facilities including seven basketball courts, one indoor soccer court, and
fourteen racquetball courts plus eight athletic fields, seven outdoor lighted basketball courts,
eleven volleyball courts, thirty-two lighted tennis courts, a softball complex with four fields, four
outdoor racquetball courts, one roller hockey court, an archery range, a skateboard park, ropes
course, climbing wall, and two waterfront parks. These facilities are available for casual use and
also to the hundreds of intramural and club sports that the Department manages. In addition, two
swimming pools (one outdoor and one indoor) are jointly managed for shared use among the
Department of Recreational Sports, O'Connell Center and College of Health and Human
Performance. The Florida Gym, Florida Pool and O'Connell Center swimming pool and weight
rooms are used for both recreation and teaching. Funding for construction of recreation facilities
comes from tuition fees that are released through the Capital Improvement Trust Fund.
Recreation programs and facility operation and maintenance are funded through a variety of
sources including student Activity and Services fees as well as other user fees. Management
responsibilities for various recreational resources are depicted in a map at the end of this report.

Program participation and facility use continues to grow on the university campus as new
facilities are provided and enrollment increases. The following tables depict the magnitude and
continued growth of offerings from the Department of Recreational Sports. (Data Source:
Department of Recreational Sports)















PAGE 6-1
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Number of Intramural Fall Sports Teams at UF, 1997-2004


PAGE 6-2
MARCH 2006


Intramural Sports Teams Fall Major Sports

400



350


--Team Tennis
300- ---3-on-3 Basketball
-Fall Softball
Flag Football
250 --Volleyball
--Indoor Soccer


200



150



100



50



0
97/98 98/99 99/00 00101 01102 02/03 03/04 04/05
Fiscal Year









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE

DATA & ANALYSIS


Number of Intramural Spring Sports Teams at UF, 1998-2005


PAGE 6-3

MARCH 2006


Intramural Sports Teams Spring Major Sports

400


350


300


250 '


E200
--*--Soccer
I-
--Basketball
-A-Softball
150 Football 3v3, 4v4 post 1999
--Volleyball (2v2, 3v3, 4v4)
--Indoor Soccer (2002)
100


50 ;*



97/98 98/99 99/00 00101 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05
Fiscal Year








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Number of Participants Utilizing Recreation Fields at UF, 2002/2003 2004/2005


Comparison of Participation Data
Recreation Fields


48,880
",ss


m '0203

m'03/04

S*04105


35,118


31,608


13900


SW Softball SW
Complex Recreation
Fields


15 I48


45,000


40,000


35,000


30.000,


25 000


20,000


15.000


10000


5.000


0O


PAGE 6-4
MARCH 2006


UVS Fields Maguire Flavet Field Lake Alice Hume Field Norman Field Pony Field
Fields Fields







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Number of Students Participating in Recreation Activities at the Southwest Recreation
Center and Student Recreation & Fitness Center, 1991/1992 2004/2005


m SWRC

SRFC


SWRC Phase I opened on
October 8, 2001.


Student Recreation & Fitness Centers
(Southwest Recreation Center / Student Recreation & Fitness Center)

Participation by Fiscal Year and Facility


1,200,000



1,000,000 -



800,000



S600,000



400,000



200,000


'91/99 9293 '93/94 '94/96 '96/98 '98197 '9798 '98/99 '99/00 '00101 '01/202 '0203 '03104 04106


- *t > +-o
o 10 >o

oNC4


SWRC opened on
September 19





SSRFC opened on
August 26, 1991.


PAGE 6-5
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Number of Students Participating in Recreation Activities at Lake Wauburg (North and
South), 1987/1988 2004/2005


Lake Wauburg
(North and South Parks)
Participation by Fiscal Year and Facility
100,000
Alpine Tower/Ropes Coure Parks dosed for extended
South Park opened May, 2001 period due to hurricane. I
Climbing Wall opened Oct, 2001. Fall, 200
North Park Park closed for months
for renovation in 19, \
80,000
199 is the first year participation
num bers are separated by park.
Participation tracked by calendar year. 63.799

60,000 o j



o 40,000 -




2 0,000 4 "A


PAGE 6-6
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


Number of Intramural Sports Teams Organized Annually, 1993/1994- 2004/2005


'93/94 '94/95 '95/96 '96/97 '97/98 '98/99 '99100 '00/01 '01/02 '02/03 '03/04 '04/05

Intramural Sports
Teams Per Year


B. University Athletic Association, Inc.
The University Athletic Association, Inc. (UAA) also provides and operates facilities on campus that
are associated with sports and recreation. The UAA exists to advance the University of Florida's
teaching, research and service missions, and is responsible for the intercollegiate athletics
program at the University of Florida. The Athletics Director, Jeremy Foley, reports directly to
the President of the University, Dr. Bernie Machen, and retains overall responsibility for the
health and stability of the program. In addition, the UAA is governed by a Board of Directors
that provides guidance and direction through approval of policies, procedures and the budget.
The UAA has developed a mission statement that was adopted by the Board of Directors to
provide goals and objectives in the development and delivery of the athletics program at the
University of Florida. This "vision" provides the road map for the University's commitment to be
second to none in the area of intercollegiate athletics.

The University Athletic Association, Inc. exists to advance the University of Florida's teaching,
research and service missions. Through the education and the promotion of the health and welfare
of students, the University Athletic Association seeks to link experiences of all backgrounds,
races, origins, genders, and cultures to prepare generations of students and staff, including women
and minorities, to be productive members of society. The character of the athletics programs at



PAGE 6-7
MARCH 2006


3,000 Indoor Soccer added In L9 RA.


2,500


2,000


( 1,500


1,000


500


0


37 icras


sprna.2oo2. -2,722
2,579
22463

2,183 2,242 2,272
2,133 2,07g 2,109
1,991
1,818







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

the University Athletic Association reflects the character of the University of Florida as a major,
public, comprehensive institution of higher learning.

The University Athletic Association is dedicated to the intellectual, physical and personal
development of student-athletes, as well as staff, including women and minorities. Demonstrating
leadership in all decisions affecting college athletics, the University Athletic Association will act
in an ethical and honest manner, will promote an environment fostering the professional and
personal achievement of coaches, administrators and staff, will attain excellence in athletic
performance, sportsmanship, financial strength, and superior fan satisfaction. This vision in
athletics is at the core of our responsibility to the University, to our students, and to the public at
large.

Gator Gold. Few schools in the country can match the rich Olympic tradition the University of
Florida boasts. Since 1968, 117 Gator student-athletes have represented 27 countries in ten
Olympiads and laid claim to 76 medals, including 39 golds. Twenty-six Gators represented 16
countries in Athens at the 2004 Olympics and took home seven medals including four gold.

Giving Back. In an era when the NCAA estimates 70 percent of Division I schools are losing
money on intercollegiate athletics, the Gator athletic program continued to have an impact in
regard to University academic programs. Since 1990, the University Athletic Association has
contributed more than $32.2 million to the University to fund academic endeavors.

The Office of Student Life. Recognizing that student-athletes face unique pressures, the
University of Florida Athletic Department instituted the Office of Student Life in 1979. The
award-winning program of personalized, professional guidance in numerous areas on a day-to-
day basis has become a leader in student-athlete services, while also demonstrating UF's
commitment to the "total development" philosophy for UF student-athletes. OSL staff
responsibilities include: orientation to college life, academic advisement, tutorial services,
personal counseling and referral, study skills, career exploration and development, personal
development, life management skills, community service and leadership training.
The University of Florida Athletic Association has a comprehensive substance abuse program and
gambling awareness education program for all student athletes.
In October 1998, the Office of Student Life was one of eight Division I programs to win the
Program of Excellence for Life Skills Award, honoring excellence in academics and life skills
program.

Academics. Since 1992, UF has honored 59 Academic All-Americans to rank fourth among all
Division I colleges and overall UF has 78 Academic All-Americans. Three Gators have been
selected to the Cosida Academic All-American Hall of Fame, the second best total in the nation,
while 18 Gator student-athletes have earned NCAA post-graduate scholarships. Five UF Student-
athletes earned selection to Cosida Academic All-American teams in 2004-05. Florida had a
league record 236 athletes earn Southeastern Conference Academic Honor Roll accolades during
2004-05, marking the eighth consecutive year that UF has placed 100-plus student-athletes on the
Southeastern Conference Academic Honor Roll. Florida leads all league schools with 2,022
Academic Honor Roll recipients since 1980, which includes an SEC-best 1,377 recipients in the
last ten seasons. The Gator men lead the SEC with 936 Academic Honor Roll recipients, and the
women rank first among league schools in the same span with 1,023 honorees.

Goodwill Gators. University of Florida student-athletes, coaches and administrators continue to
be a fixture in the Gainesville community and beyond, donating their time and effort to a number

PAGE 6-8
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS

of community-related endeavors. The "Goodwill Gators" program was recognized by the
National Consortium of Academics and Sports and received the 2000-2001 and 1997-1998
Outreach and Service Award. In recent years, UF student-athletes have participated in more than
330 events and reached out to more than 20,000 people of all ages.

NCAA Certification and NCAA Compliance. The University of Florida is a national leader in
the area of athletic compliance and institutional control by developing one of the most
comprehensive compliance programs involving coaches, student-athletes, athletic administration,
university administration, alumni, boosters and fans. The University of Florida has completed a
campus-wide effort to study its athletics program as part of the NCAA Division I athletics
certification program. The program, the first to focus solely on certification of athletics programs,
addressed academic integrity, rules compliance, as well as a commitment to equity.

Facilities. Florida facilities are among the best in the nation. Since 1986 there have been more
than $139 million in capital improvements, including two major expansions of the football
stadium, a multipurpose athletic field house, new facilities for tennis, track & field, soccer,
baseball, golf, softball and swimming. The University Athletic Association played a role in the
$4.1 million academic advising center on the University of Florida campus, which serves UF
students and Gator student-athletes and assisted in funding the $8.1 million renovation of the
Stephen C. O'Connell Center. A $10 million practice facility for the men's and women's
basketball teams opened in the Fall 2001. The $50 million renovation project of the football
stadium press box with additional sky box seating began in May 2001 and was completed for the
2003 football season. A $4 million renovation project of the golf course was completed in
December 2001.

Gender Equity. The University of Florida women's athletics program, which was named the
nation's No. 2 women's program in an August 1999 and 2000 issue of Sports Illustrated for
Women, has long been a great source of pride for Gator fans. Since 1995, UF has added two
women's programs, soccer and softball, increasing the number of women's sports offered to 10.
Florida funds the maximum number of scholarships allowed by the NCAA for each of its 10
women's sports, totaling 103 scholarships for the 2005-06 season. Florida has claimed a total of
nine NCAA women's team titles and leads the league with 91 Southeastern Conference crowns.

Gator Boosters, Inc. More than 13,000 boosters raise more than $25 million annually to support
athletic scholarships and capital improvements. There are more than 675 Bull Gators, individuals
who give $12,000 or more annually. Gator Boosters Inc. is chaired by the University of Florida
President and served by a 70-member volunteer Board of Directors.

Athletics and Tourism. The athletic events that occur on the University of Florida campus draw
visitors to Gainesville from across the State of Florida and beyond. This tourism provides income
to the community in terms of bed tax and sales tax revenues in addition to an overall influx of
visitor dollars spent in the community. The University recognizes that these benefits also come
with some impacts to local facilities and services as a result of major special events. The UAA
reimburses the City of Gainesville for these additional services through interlocal agreements.








PAGE 6-9
MARCH 2006






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015 DATA & ANALYSIS


C. Recreation Facilities and Programs for Employees
University employees are permitted to use the casual outdoor recreation facilities, such as tennis
courts and basketball courts on a space available basis when the facility is not reserved for organized
teams or events. For a minimal fee, employees can join the Living Well program operated through
the College of Health and Human performance. Living Well members may use the recreation and
exercise facilities of Florida Gym and Florida Pool. Employee's spouses and retired employees are
also eligible to join Living Well. The facilities of Lake Wauburg and Lake Wauburg South are
available to employees and their guests free of charge. The indoor swimming pool, track and weight
rooms at the O'Connell Center are available to employees and their families during designated open
recreation hours. The University Golf Course is also available to all students, faculty, staff, alumni
and their guests with fees typical of other public or private courses.

D. Recreation Facilitiesfor On-Campus Residents
The Department of Housing and Residence Education provides recreation facilities for housing
occupants, including students and their families. Swimming pools are located at Broward Residence
Hall, Maguire Village Complex, and two pools are located at Tanglewood. There are a total of
twenty-one playgrounds for the children of students dispersed at Corry Village, Diamond Village,
Tanglewood, University Village South and Maguire Village. In addition to these recreation facilities,
residence halls and village communities provide a variety of basketball courts, sand volleyball courts
and other active recreation resources along with passive recreation areas including barbeque grills for
picnicking.



II. Facilities and Programs Inventory

A. National Benchmarking

When compared to other universities with comparable student headcount enrollments, the amount of
recreational facility space at the University of Florida is below average in many categories. Most
interesting are comparisons of intramural teams and fitness class offerings compared to the available
space. Compared to other universities, the University of Florida provides as much or more recreation
programming such as fitness classes and organized teams; however, the space available in which to
conduct those programs is less than at these other universities. Clearly, the University of Florida is
managing its facilities for maximum utilization and efficiency, but the demand for additional
recreational programs is outstripping even the most efficient utilization plans. This understanding of
supply and demand highlights the difficulties often encountered when attempting to share student
recreational facilities with other programs or user groups. The following tables present comparison
data for the University of Florida and twelve peer institutions as gathered by the Department of
Recreational Sports.











PAGE 6-10
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Comparison oflntramural Teams, Classes and Clubs at Peer Institutions, 2005
Students Total Intramural Teams/year
# of # of
Flag Indoor Fitness Active
Total Under- Bskt- Foot Indoor Soft- Volley- Classes Sport
University Pop. rad Grad ball -ball Soccer Soccer ball ball Ultimate /Week* Clubs

Arizona 36,932 28,369 8,564 202 148 103 9 180 78 9 55 40
Georgia 33,405 23,814 8,386 215 265 115 110 258 53 8 65 43
Florida
State 36,750 28,262 8,488 220 320 216 0 266 128 0 80 48
Illinois 40,000 30,000 10,000 225 215 185 0 125 150 0 65 43
Indiana 36,743 28,045 7,460 519 358 186 227 186 186 61 80 48
Iowa State 26,380 21,534 5,026 343 265 125 140 258 290 63 55 50
Kansas 26,980 20,887 6,093 387 126 126 0 116 188 21 30 28
Minnesota 50,954 28,740 13,841 250 200 100 100 250 150 50 60 27
Ohio State 48,000 32,000 16,000 370 315 210 110 315 96 25 50 65
Texas 50,377 37,337 13,040 507 437 159 137 286 190 9 116 42
Texas
A&M 44,435 35,732 8,703 362 395 174 178 254 204 0 90 30
Virginia 19,643 12,907 6,736 367 234 168 147 207 233 79 90 65

Average 37,550 27,302 9,361 331 273 156 97 225 162 27 70 44.08

Florida 47,993 33,694 14,299 548 684 246 172 620 180 50 120 38
Fitness Classes /Week including instructional

Comparison ofIndoor Recreational Facilities at Peer Institutions, 2005
Indoor Facilities
Total # of GSF
GSF # of GSF Multi- Multi- # of # of Climb
Main GSF Satel- Strgth Purp Purp # of Soccer Rqtball # of Ropes -ing
University Facility Satellite ites Trn Rms Rms Courts Courts Courts Pools Course Wall

Arizona 125,000 85,000 4 12,000 4 9,200 8 0 8 1 no no
Georgia 430,000 0 0 13,000 3 9,000 8 2 10 3 yes yes
Florida
State 133,000 24,000 1 20,000 3 8,000 7 0 7 1 no no
Illinois 235,000 146,000 3 20,000 2 7,000 13 1 18 4 no no
Indiana 306,970 0 0 13,717 9 30,700 21 1 22 3 no no
Iowa State 310,500 299,971 4 31 13 3 no yes
Kansas 98,477 65,000 2 15,000 2 4,100 10 0 8 2 no yes

Minnesota 223,868 234,774 4 12,860 4 10,778 9 0 23 5 no Yes
Ohio State Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na
Texas 250,000 250,000 4 29,000 10 14,526 13 2 23 2 no yes
Texas
A&M 286,000 200,000 1 14,000 5 8 14 3 no yes
Virginia 150,000 125,000 3 21,000 9 16,000 11 1 14 2 no no

Average 231,710 129,977 2 17,058 5 12,145 13 1 15 3

Florida 100,000 43,100 1 24,600 3 9,000 7 1 14 1 no no


PAGE 6-11
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Comparison of Outdoor Recreational Field Facilities at Peer Institutions, 2005

Outdoor Facilities
# of
Dedicated # of Multi- # Exclusive # Exclusive
Total Acres Acres No Club Purp IM # Exclusive IM Softball IM Softball -
University Acres Lighted Lights Fields Fields IM Softball Lighted No Lights

Arizona 6.3 6.3 0 0 2 0 0 0
Georgia 35 25 10 1 10 0 0 0
Florida
State 116 58 58 4 12 5 5 0
Illinois 42 20 22 5 10 4 4 0
Indiana 22.5 14.5 8 2 6 0 0 0
Iowa State 71 0 71 8 34 13 0 13
Kansas 22.5 0 16 3 22.5 0 0 0
Minnesota 18 10.8 7.2 5 9 6 6 0
Ohio State Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na
Texas 37 37 0 0 20 0 0 0
Texas A&M 184 30 154 3 4 4 0 4
Virginia 30 26 4 2 5 2 2 0

Average 53 21 32 3 12 3 2 2

Florida 28 26 2 3 12 4 4 0
NOTE: IM = Intramural


PAGE 6-12
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Comparison of Outdoor Recreational Court Facilities at Peer Institutions, 2005
Outdoor Facilities
# of # of # of
# of Bsktball # of Tennis Inline Do you rent
Bsktball No Tennis No Hockey # of Ropes Climbing Rec Sports
University Lihted Lits Lighted Lights Courts Pools Course Wall Facilities?

Arizona 0 1 6 11 0 1 yes no yes
Georgia 0 0 9 13 0 3 yes yes yes
Florida
State 2 0 12 1 1 1 yes yes no
Illinois 3 0 15 0 1 4 yes no yes
Indiana 0 0 18 0 0 3 no no no
Iowa State 0 3 8 0 1 3 no no yes
Kansas 2 0 8 0 0 2 no no yes
Minnesota 0 0 0 4 0 5 no no yes
Ohio State Na Na Na Na Na Na no Na Na
Texas 4 0 52 0 0 2 no no yes
Texas A&M 3 0 12 6 0 3 no no yes
Virginia 3 1 13 4 0 2 yes no yes

Average 2 14 4 3

Florida 7 0 32 0 1 1 yes yes yes


PAGE 6-13
MARCH 2006









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Comparison of Indoor Intramural Sports Teams and Available Indoor Courts at UF and

Peer Institutions



Comparison of Indoor Intramural Sports Teams and Available Indoor Courts
2004/05
1000 35


900
Basketball, Volleyball, Indoor Soccer teams 30
Indoor Courts
800


25
700


600
20 a

S500


400


300
10


200

5
100



Arizona Florida Illinios Georgia Minnesota Kansas Ohio State Texas A&M Virginia IowaState Texas lida) Indiana
State


PAGE 6-14
MARCH 2006








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Comparison of Outdoor Intramural Sports Teams and Available Fields at UF and Peer
Institutions



Comparison of Outdoor Intramural Sports Teams and Available Fields
2004/05
1200 25

U Flag Football, Soccer, Ultimate
S0 Fields

1000
*20



800

15



i2 so
10



400




200





Arizona Kansas Minnesota Georgia Illinios Iowa State Virginia Florida Ohio State Texas A&M Indiana Texas Florida
State


PAGE 6-15
MARCH 2006







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, 2005-2015


RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
DATA & ANALYSIS


Comparison of Group Fitness Sessions and Available Space at UF and Peer Institutions


B. Educational Plant Survey
The State University System of Florida Space Needs Formula provides definitions for each
university space type to be used in the analysis of space need and capital project justification.
The formula does not provide standards for recreation facilities; however, it does produce a space
evaluation for teaching gymnasiums. A teaching gymnasium is defined as a room or area used
by students, staff, or the public for athletic or physical education activities. Included in this
category are rooms generally referred to as gymnasiums, basketball courts, handball courts,
squash courts, wrestling rooms, weight or exercise rooms, racquetball courts, indoor swimming
pools, indoor putting areas, indoor ice rinks, indoor tracks, indoor stadium fields, and field
houses. Service areas such as locker rooms, shower rooms, ticket booths, rooms for dressing,
equipment, supply, storage, first-aid, towels, etc. are also included in this category.

The net assignable square feet (NASF) need for teaching gymnasiums is based on a minimum
facility for each main campus of 50,000 NASF for the first 5,000 FTE enrollment, plus an
additional 3 NASF per FTE for enrollment over 5,000 FTE.

Based on application of the State Space Needs Formula for the period 2004 to 2009, the
University of Florida has a generated need for 133,154 NASF of teaching gymnasium space. In
2004, the University had an inventory of 71,516 NASF of teaching gymnasium space leaving an
unmet need for 61,638 NASF of new space through the year 2009.


PAGE 6-16
MARCH 2006


Comparison of Group Fitness Sessions and Avialable Space
2004/05


State




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs