University of Illinois Facilities and Services

Charge

• Establish appropriate general guidance for the orderly development and presentation of the campus.
• Provide input to proponents/designers of proposed projects contributing to development of the campus.
• Provide reaction to specific design/development solutions proposed by contracted professionals and in-house staff.

In the past, the Campus Committee on Historic Sites, the Architectural Design Review Committee, and the Committee on Art in Public Spaces have responded to separate charges, agendas, and frequency of meetings. Through consultation with representatives of each of these committees, the campus believes it would be in the best interests of efficiency and effectiveness if these committees act together as the Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee (CDAC). Recognizing that some special-interest topics and continuing initiatives may involve issues of more limited interest, the three committees remain intact as subcommittees of the CDAC.

• Subcommittee on Design
• Subcommittee on Historic Sites
• Subcommittee on Art in Public Spaces

Membership

• Faculty appointees
• Student representatives
• Deputy Campus Historic Preservation Officer (staff)
• Campus Historic Preservation Officer (ex officio)
• Director, Office for Capital Programs (ex officio)

Activities

In addition to identifying historic campus resources and rating these for their significance, the committee is involved in construction projects which would affect those resources.

The Subcommittee on Historic Sites advises the committee on matters relating to the preservation, utilization, adaptive use, rehabilitation, and renovation of significant campus sites, buildings, and open spaces. The subcommittee also provides advice relative to the impact of a facility of potentially historic value resulting from renovation of new construction. Typically, a project involving a significant structure will reach the committee twice: once, during concept formation so that guidance concerning care of the resource will reach the designers before they begin their work, and again at either the end of schematic design or design development for feedback to the designer before the project planning progresses.

University Regents

• 1868 - 1880 John Milton Gregory
• 1880 - 1891 Selim Hobart Peabody
• 1891 - 1894 Thomas Jonathan Burrill

University Presidents

• 1894 - 1904 Andrew Sloan Draper*
• 1904 - 1920 Edmund Janes James
• 1920 - 1930 David Kinley
• 1930 - 1933 Harry Woodburn Chase
• 1934 - 1934 Arthur Hill Daniels
• 1934 - 1946 Arthur Cutts Willard
• 1946 - 1953 George Dinsmore Stoddard
• 1953 - 1955 Lloyd Morey
• 1955 - 1971 David Dodds Henry
• 1971 - 1979 John E. Corbally, Jr.
• 1979 - 1995 Stanley O. Ikenberry
• 1995 - 2005 James J. Stukel
• 2005 - 2010 B. Joseph White
• 2010 - 2012 Michael J. Hogan
• 2012 - present Robert A. Easter

*Regent title changed to President by the Board of Trustees on second day of term.

• First Importance: “Outstanding” (5) in architectural or historical significance, worthy of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Retain in continued use. Should be treated with respect and in strict compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Interpretive efforts are warranted.
• Second Importance: “Significant” (4) in terms of architecture, design, history, or associations, in most cases suitable for National Register or district listing. Treatment requires careful consideration consistent with the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines. Appropriate for marking.
• Third Importance: “Important” (3) in the fabric of the campus but not necessarily in historic or design terms. Includes properties necessary to complete the integrity of a group or area. Any treatment, including adaptive use, should be carefully handled consistent with the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines and Campus Planning Procedure Documents/Guidelines. Alteration or elimination of properties in any of the first three categories must be thoroughly documented.
• Fourth Importance: “Neutral” (2) in terms of historical or design interest, but realistically permanent structures, the maintenance or treatment of which requires consideration of impact on surroundings.
• Least Importance: “Bad” (1) Unsuited for continued use because of negative impact on functions or surroundings. Suitable for removal, subject to verification of absence of heritage values.

Buildings

The preservation index score is based on a 5.00 scale. See Appendix 23 - Evaluation of Campus Properties for a description of categories.

Return to Top

Sites

The preservation index score is based on a 5.00 scale. See Appendix 23 - Evaluation of Campus Properties for a description of categories.

Return to Top

Interiors

The preservation index score is based on a 5.00 scale. See Appendix 23 - Evaluation of Campus Properties for a description of categories.

Purpose

The university has adopted a project planning and facility delivery process to help ensure that its economic and capital priorities are preserved, to allow the development of a capital proposal, to receive the appropriate reviews, and to enable adequate coordination of offices which have a physical planning role for the campus. The major steps in the process and the participants in that process are listed below.

Participants

• Proponents/Users
• Office of Project Planning and Facility Management
• Facilities & Services
• Division of Environmental Health and Safety
• Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
• Office of Real Estate Planning and Services
• Office of Safety and Risk Management
• Campus support services
• Division of Campus Parking
• Professional technical consultants
• Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee

Phases of the Process

Project proposal

The proponent, with the assistance of campus facility support offices, develops a proposal for a major building addition or a new facility.

Conceptualization

The project is conceived, the need verified, and the scope defined. The site is tentatively identified and the budgetary requirements estimated. See Conceptualization for more information. 

Feasibility

The implementation of the project is tested. Is it salable? Are there internal or external constraints to implementation? Are there obstacles to implementation and, if so, can they be overcome? See Feasibility for more information.

Program development

The functional requirements of the project are defined, in detail, in a program statement.

Program verification

Can the project as conceived and as defined by the program statement be executed for the funds available on the site selected?

Schematic design

Produce one or more conceptual design solutions to meet the project's program and budget requirements. more »

Design development

Refine the preferred solution in greater detail, defining the appearance and materials being proposed. Refine the cost estimate and the proposed project schedule.

Construction documents

Based on the approved design development documents, the construction documents will be prepared in sufficient detail to successfully bid and construct the project. Refine cost estimate and project schedule.

Bidding

Advertise and receive qualified bids for the work described in the construction documents. Recommend award to the lowest qualified bidder.

Construction

The successful bidder will construct the project per the construction agreement and all subsequent change orders.

Commissioning

The building is tested. Mechanical systems are balanced and the security system is tested. Mechanical trades are trained in the operation and maintenance of the facility and all its systems.

Occupancy

The users move in.

Post-occupancy evaluation

After a meaningful period of occupancy has passed (perhaps one year), the users are queried as to the appropriateness of the planning standards, the success of specific space requirements, reaction to the intent of the building systems, etc. Resultant information is used to adjust campus planning, design, and construction standards.