1
HOWARD UNIVERSITY2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/ Recreation
JUNE 30, 2010
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Market Context2. Student Housing3. Intercollegiate Athletics4. Campus Recreation5. Q&A Throughout
2
MARKET CONTEXT3
HBCU/TWI DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK STUDENTS
MARKET CONTEXT4
HBCU/TWI DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK STUDENTS
MARKET CONTEXT5
MARKET CONTEXT6
Recruitment focuses on capturing the most prepared students
Retaining the best students is becoming increasingly difficult
THEN NOW
STUDENT HOUSING
1. Context2. Macro View3. Location Attributes4. Quality & Unit Mix5. Problem & Opportunity Summary
Pace University – Campus Master Plan Feasibility Analysis8
Inadequate Facilities Poorly Maintained Facilities
Source: The impact of facilities on recruitment and retention of students – Reynolds, et al 2006
7.9%
9.8%
14.1%
14.8%
16.5%
16.8%
18.8%
21.1%
21.4%
23.9%
40.5%
41.3%
Residential Facilities off Campus
Varsity Athletic Facilities
Research / Lab Facilities
Other
Recreation Facilities
Student Union Center
Technology Facilities
Library
Open Space
Classrooms
Facilities in My Major
Residential Facilities on Campus
8.7%
9.1%
10.9%
14.2%
16.0%
16.6%
19.3%
21.6%
24.8%
30.2%
44.1%
69.6%
Residential Facilities off Campus
Varsity Athletic Facilities
Research / Lab Facilities
Technology Facilities
Other
Recreation Facilities
Library
Facilities in My Major
Student Union Center
Open Space
Classrooms
Residential Facilities on Campus
STUDENT HOUSING - Context
Facility Related Reasons Students Reject Acceptance Letters
STUDENT HOUSING - Context9
STATES THAT SUPPLY HOWARD THE MOST STUDENTS
STUDENT HOUSING – Macro View10
Howard Has the Capacity to House 45% of its Students, but GW, GU and AU House Between 60% and 70%.
Off-Campus Options are Often: In Poor Condition Too Expensive Far From Campus
Affordable Student Housing is not The Highest & Best Use of Privately Held Real Estate Near Howard’s Campus
Howard’s Recruitment & Retention Efforts are Impeded by a Lack of Housing.
STUDENT HOUSING – Location11
STUDENT HOUSING – Location12
1,42630.9%
2,06244.7%
1,12124.3%
Beds By Location Campus Core
Campus Edge
Off-Campus
ExhibitC.2: Beds by Location Based upon Proximity to Campus
STUDENT HOUSING – Quality & Mix13
RESIDENCE HALL Beds % Total Gross SqFt GSF/Bed % GSF Built Age
Bethune Annex (BX) 557 12.09% 225,000 403.9 14.78% 1994 16Carver Hall (CA) 173 3.75% 58,567 338.5 3.85% 1942 68Cook Hall (CO) 200 4.34% 83,444 417.2 5.48% 1937 73Drew Hall (DR) 332 7.20% 88,979 268.0 5.85% 1957 53Howard Plaza Towers East (HPE) 893 19.38% 286,844 321.2 18.84% 1989 21
Howard Plaza Towers West (HPW) 837 18.16% 286,843 342.7 18.84% 1989 21Meridian Hill Hall (ME) 649 14.08% 182,516 281.2 11.99% 1941 69Slowe Hall (SL) 299 6.49% 93,711 313.4 6.16% 1942 68Tubman Quadrangle* 669 14.52% 216,319 323.3 14.21% 1937 73
Baldwin Hall (BA) 124 2.69% 50,625 408.3 3.33% 1948 62Crandall Hall (CR) 141 3.06% 36,150 256.4 2.37% 1929 81Frazier Hall (FR) 127 2.76% 42,769 336.8 2.81% 1929 81Truth Hall (TR) 150 3.25% 36,150 241.0 2.37% 1929 81Wheatley Hall (WH) 127 2.76% 50,625 398.6 3.33% 1948 62
TOTAL 4,609 1,522,223 330.3 average GSF/BedExhibit A.1: Housing Inventory, Gross Square Footage, and Building Age Calculations by Residence Hall
* Bed count & GSF are sums of Quad complex halls, and GSF/Bed year built & age are averages of same.
STUDENT HOUSING – Quality & Mix14
UNIT TYPE Beds % Total Classification Head Count % Total CapacityTraditional 1,790 38.8% Freshman 2,329 23.3% 76.9%Suites (J r & Full) 1,064 23.1% Sophomore 1,614 16.1% 35.9%
J unior 1,352 13.5%Apartments 1,755 38.1% Senior 1,635 16.3% 37.2%
Graduate 3,085 30.8%TOTALS 4,609 beds 10,015 students
Exhibit B.1: Unit Type Capacity Allocated by Market Segment
STUDENT HOUSING – Quality & Mix15
Occupancy Type Bed Count % Total Unit Type Bed Count % TotalSingle 2,847 61.8% Traditional 1,790 38.8%
Traditional 874 30.7% Single 874 48.8%Suite 450 15.8% Double 604 33.7%Apartment 1523 53.5% Triple 312 17.4%
Double 1,450 31.5% Suite 1,064 23.1%Traditional 604 41.7% Single 450 42.3%Suite 614 42.3% Double 614 57.7%Apartment 232 16.0% Triple 0 0.0%
Triple 312 6.8% Apartment 1,755 38.1%Traditional 312 100.0% Single 1523 86.8%Suite 0 0.0% Double 232 13.2%Apartment 0 0.0% Triple 0 0.0%
TOTAL 4,609 4,609Exhibit B.2: Bedroom Occupancy by Unit Type
STUDENT HOUSING – Quality & Mix16
UNIT TYPES Beds % Total Market SegmentTraditional 1,790 38.8% Freshmen 2,329
Men's 493 27.5% Male 811 34.8%Women's 669 37.4% Female 1,518 65.2%Coed 628 35.1%
Suite 1,064 23.1% Sophomores & J uniors 2,966Men's 12 1.1% Male 1,007 34.0%Women's 532 50.0% Female 1,959 66.0%Coed 520 48.9%
Apartment 1,755 38.1% Seniors & Graduate 4,720Men's 0 0.0% Male 1,772 37.5%Women's 25 1.4% Female 2,948 62.5%Coed 1,730 98.6%
TOTAL 4,609Exhibit B.3: Unit Type and Classification Distribution by Gender
PHYSICAL PLANNING CRITERIA17
Existing Housing Inventory Existing Demand Reconciliation
Building / Type Current BedsProjected Demand
Current OCR
Targeted OCR
RangeTraditional:
Carver Hall 180 Meridian Hill Hall 574 Slowe Hall 300 Tubman Quad 640
Total Traditional Beds: 1,694 2,241 1.32 1.05 - 1.10Jr. Suites:
Bethune Annex 550 Cook Hall 200 Meridian Hill Hall 185 Drew Hall 330
Total Jr. Suite Beds: 1,265 1,928 1.52 1.10 - 1.20Full Suites:
Phase 1 0 Total Full Suite Beds: 0 789 0.00 1.10 - 1.20Apartments:
Howard Plaza Towers 1,539 Total Apartment Beds: 1,539 3,199 2.08 1.15 - 1.30Totals 4,498 8,157 1.81
STUDENT HOUSING – Summary18
The Need for New & Renovated Housing is Acute 1,100 beds are in poor locations and are candidates for
replacement As much as 1,100 beds must be added to meet demand A significant portion of the balance of Howard’s Inventory
must be carefully assessed for renovation or replacement to meet new standards of excellence
As Much Housing as Possible Should be Built in the Campus Core
With Between 800,000 and 1,000,000 S.F. of Housing Needed, There is an Opportunity to Place Some Strategically on or Near Georgia Avenue to Catalyze Retail and Commercial Development
STUDENT HOUSING – Summary19
Campus Recreation
1. Context2. Functional Relationships3. Problem Summary4. Key Considerations
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation - Context
Campus Recreation – Functional Relations
Campus Recreation Centers Can Anchor Student Neighborhoods
Campus Recreation Centers Can Be Used as Catalysts for Day-Part Utilization Expansion for Campus Edge Retail, Student Centers or Related Facilities
Recreation Centers Can be Used to Support Alumni and Community Relations
Recreation Centers Can Have Relationships with Health Care Service Units such as Cardiac Rehab, Orthopedic Surgery or Wellness & Preventive Care Programs
Campus Recreation – Problem Summary
Howard Does Not Have a Contemporary Campus Recreation Center, as a Result Howard Students are Relatively Inactive.
Campus Recreation – Problem Summary
Given Industry Standards, Howard Has a Current Need for Between 110,000 and 120,000 S.F. of Campus Recreation Space.
Campus Recreation Centers are very Effective Recruitment Collateral for Student and Faculty.
Building a New Recreation Facility Would Mitigate the Current Space Limitations Facing the Athletic Department.
Intercollegiate Athletics
1. Context2. Problem Summary3. Key Considerations
Intercollegiate Athletics - Context
Howard Sponsors 16 Intercollegiate Athletic Teams as a Member of the MEAC Conference
The Primary Facility Assets are Burr Gym & Green Stadium and Both Facilities are Shared with Recreation and Academic Programs
Since Burr Gym was Constructed in 1964, Several Rounds of a Facility “Arms Race” have Been Completed Causing Howard’s Facilities to Fall Well Below the Current Standard in Both Capacity and Quality.
Due to Resource Constraints, Most Schools Target Different Standards for Each Sport they Sponsor.
Intercollegiate Athletics - Context
Competitive Pressure
Title IX Compliance
Recruiting – Athletes & Coaches
Retention – Coaches
Donor Interests
Consistency of Image & Standards
Athletic Facility Development Drivers
Intercollegiate Athletics – Problem Summary
Locker Room
s /
Team
Room
s
Pra
ctice F
acilitie
s
Com
petition V
enue
Specta
tor A
ccom
modations
Adm
inistration
Ath
letic Tra
inin
g &
Rehab
Strength
& C
onditio
nin
g
Museum
/ H
all o
f Fam
e
Academ
ic S
upport
Iconogra
phy
Avera
ge
Targ
et A
vera
ge
% o
f Ta
rget
Weig
hte
d A
vera
ge
Weig
hte
d Targ
et
% o
f Ta
rget
Men's TeamsBasketball 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2.0 3.5 57.1% 1.9 3.6 54.0%Cross Country 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.5 3.4 43.8%Football 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2.3 3.6 63.9% 2.1 3.7 57.7%Soccer 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1.8 3.4 52.9% 1.7 3.5 49.0%Swimming & Diving 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.4 3.2 43.8% 1.4 3.4 42.6%Tennis 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.5 3.4 43.8%Track & Field 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.4 3.4 41.7%
Women's TeamsBasketball 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2.0 3.5 57.1% 1.8 3.6 50.6%Bowling 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.7 3.2 53.1% 1.5 3.4 46.0%Cross Country 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.3 3.3 39.4% 1.4 3.4 40.8%Lacrosse 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.7 3.3 51.5% 1.7 3.4 48.2%Soccer 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.6 3.3 48.5% 1.6 3.4 47.8%Softball 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.4 3.3 42.4% 1.6 3.4 47.0%Swimming & Diving 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.4 3.2 43.8% 1.4 3.4 41.8%Track & Field 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.6 3.4 47.4%Volleyball 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.8 3.4 52.9% 1.7 3.5 47.8%
Scoring Legend:
5
4
3
2
1
TEA
M
Exhibit A.2: Assessment of Existing Facility Components by Team and Reconcilation with Targeted Performance Levels
Facilities are comparable with those of the national leaders in Division I intercollegiate athletics, providing the highest possible competitive advantage.
Facilities are sufficient to provide a clear competitive advantage amongst local or conference leaders.
Facilities are functionally sufficient for intended purposes, and are not an encumbrance to an extraordinary coaching staff.
Facilities are clearly lacking, creating a competitive disadvantage, negatively impacting performance, recruitment, and retention.
Facilities are among the worst in the conference due to functional problems that place teams at a clear competitive disadvantage.
Intercollegiate Athletics - Considerations
Possibility of the Emergence of One or More Flagship Programs
Possibility of a Change in the Composition of Sports Sponsored
Possibility of a Change in Conference Affiliation and Competition Level
Resource Availability
42
HOWARD UNIVERSITY2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/ Recreation
JUNE 30, 2010
PHYSICAL PLANNING CRITERIA43