Campus og studiemiljø - Bygningsstyrelsen

overview, legitimacy and commitment
“We wanted to create ownership of the process amongst our students
and employees,” says Anette Persson. “That is why we wanted to get
them involved. We wanted to create commitment to – and ownership
of – the process and the area as well as the subsequent result.
We wanted employees and students to consider what could be improved
about the surroundings. We wanted to demonstrate that LIFE
has some very special qualities.”
The development plan is also a checklist. It highlights the things
you have to consider before carrying out the actual physical measures.
The answers to those issues vary from area to area and may
also vary in the future. The basis for decision-making therefore has
to be transparent. “By explaining why certain measures have been
adapted rather than just mentioning what has been decided, we give
the process legitimacy and motivate users and collaboration partners
to commit to the process,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen. By way of
example Frederiksberg Municipality was involved at an early stage
of the vision process.
“We had meetings with the municipality where we talked about
our plans and they told us about their traffic plans, etc. We were
interested in changing the traffic conditions around campus, especially
as regards the two roads that cut through the campus area. Our
future collaboration is off to a good start, because they know what
we want and why and because they have been able to influence the
plan,” says Anette Persson.
academic skills at the university can contribute to the campus
planning
“Naturally, all the academic skills present at LIFE place us in a privileged
position. I nevertheless think that other university faculties
could also benefit from involving their academic skills in a similar
way,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen. Thanks to the academic skills
in landscape architecture, urban spaces and vegetation, researchers
at LIFE could contribute specific proposals to the vision plan. One
researcher at the Centre for Forest & Landscape, for instance, worked
with a seepage system that can prevent flooding in connection with
heavy downpours.
Students and employees can also contribute with their knowledge
of the area. At one of the dialogue meetings, they were given the
task of noting the different qualities, potentials and problems of the
campus area on individual maps. These maps were later combined
into one. This made it clear to the working group what they needed
to focus on. It was a pleasant surprise to the working group that the
students and employees identified such a wealth of opportunities for
the campus and were open to change.
Plan well ahead when involving students through the teaching
Free beer on tap and hot dogs attract students. That was what the
working group handed out to attract the students at LIFE to the open
dialogue meetings. Flyers and emails, on the other hand, were not
the way to draw attention to the dialogue meetings in this project.
To ensure considerable student participation, the meetings should
not take place too close to the exams either, but preferably be scheduled
immediately before the Friday bar, Marianne Vejen Hansen and
Campus Case: køBenHavns universitet / university oF CopenHagen
Anette Persson agree. To involve the students further through their
teaching requires even more planning. “We wanted to involve a
group of students in a project about campus access for the disabled,
but the teaching plan for the year was already in place. On top of
that, it is a bit of a challenge to get the students involved in the work
to develop the campus area. Their lessons are quite spread out and
with their strong academic focus, the students often end up wearing
‘blinkers’,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen. It is easier to involve the
student organisations, which can formulate and represent clear interests.
Student groups in support of sustainability, for instance, had
an opportunity to present their ideas at one of the Advisory Board
meetings. The same representative from the Student’s Council was
a member of both the Advisory Board and the steering group, which
ensured a good knowledge flow.
the development plan is rolled out
The development plan should not be allowed to gather dust on a
shelf, so a lot of work remains to be done. The development plan
does not contain specific measures or guidelines. These now have to
be defined in the middle of our busy daily lives. The working group
is therefore in the process of preparing an action plan, which will
contain both the overall long-term visions and the minor quick successes
such as establishing a jogging track on the campus area. The
difference between the development plan and the action plan can
be described by means of the theme ‘Outdoor lighting’. The action
plan must specify guidelines for what correct outdoor lighting is
at a number of places based on the considerations outlined in the
development plan. These considerations relate to orientation, safety,
atmosphere and staging. As part of more specific guidelines, the
working group would like a common set of rules for new physical
initiatives. The aim is not to create uniformity but to ensure a kind
of diversity where several different players can take initiatives and
the projects can be implemented on an ongoing basis. The group will
take stock of the work done every six months and establish guidelines
for future activities.
The communication work has yet to be completed, too. It is important
to make earlier initiatives visible so that both internal and
external users of the campus area can see the results of their efforts.
“Once the signs are up for the new jogging track, or the deck chairs
are put out around the campus area, it must be clear that this is just
a small part of the overall development plan,” Anette Persson concludes.
Cathrine Schmidt
89