Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 3

Recommendation 3
Department Architecture
Consensus Opinion 17 out of 17 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation At this time, the Department of Architecture wants to stay in the College of Environmental Design, rather than become a School in the College of Engineering. Although we understand that elevating the Department of Architecture to a School in the College of Engineering was intended to give us more autonomy and to increase our access to resources that we desperately need, we think that there are structural incompatibilities that would make such a change difficult. With our B.Arch. the only impacted program at the university, we acknowledge that the resources provided to us in ENV have been inadequate and have not met our present needs for improved facilities, reasonable teaching loads or research opportunities, let alone our ability to expand to meet the enormous unmet demand from our highly qualified applicants. However, we would prefer to remain in ENV with the programs with which we have the most in common, Landscape Architecture, the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies and Urban and Regional Planning, all of which, along with our Department, have been recommended for enhanced funding in the Phase II recommendations of the P&R committee addressing Academic Programs.

We do not see how becoming a small piece of a big college with an established culture, quite different from our own studio-based one, would necessarily give us access to greater resources. We already have collaborations in both research and teaching with the College of Engineering and, while we want to continue and expand those connections, particularly in the area of Building Information Management (BIM) in which we see great potential for mutual gain, we are far more engaged with the Departments of Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning, as well as the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies. We have interdisciplinary courses and projects with these administrative units, as well as shared collections in Visual Studies and the Archives - Special Collections, that have developed over more than 30 years. These collaborations include critical ones in the areas of Sustainability; a number of our faculty have been heavily involved in the Lyle Center since its founding and our current faculty are playing leadership roles at the Lyle Center and on the campus in the University’s Climate Change initiative. Like the Lyle Center, we believe we can best continue to play a critical leadership role at the University in advancing environmental studies and research by maintaining our current close ties with LA, URP and LCRS in the College of Environmental Design.

We also do not think that the Art History program is compatible with our Department. While we have some shared interests in terms of architecture history, the two programs are very different. Our Department is highly impacted, serves only our own students and is focused on its professional programs, accreditation and licensure. Art History teaches mostly service classes and general education and is humanities-based. We do not think that such a merger would serve the best interests of either Architecture or Art History.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Civil Engineering
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 16 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Architecture is a well-regarded program and enjoys an excellent reputation within the industry. We agree that the Architecture and Civil Engineering programs would both benefit from increased collaboration, and we are currently collaborating on a team-taught course that will be offered during Winter 2008. However, in our opinion, the Architecture program, as well as the Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture programs, will have the greatest potential for continued growth and excellence if they remain within a College of Environmental Design.

Currently, significant synergy exists between these three programs, including a series of common courses. This is partly due to physical proximity and existing academic ties and collaborations. This invaluable synergy would be weakened by breaking apart this College. In addition, the College of Environmental Design is a campus leader in sustainable design, which is consistent with the campus goals, but eliminating the college would significantly set back these efforts,

We don’t believe relocating the Architecture program into the College of Engineering would significantly facilitate new collaborations, and the physical proximity of the Architecture Department across campus would make it difficult for them to be active participants in college affairs. The actual result would likely be quite the opposite: An orphan program isolated from the rest of the campus. A much better way to facilitate collaboration within or between colleges would be to provide a more generous method of allocating WTUs in team-taught courses. The current system is clearly a disincentive.

Therefore, we recommend Environmental Design continue as a standalone college, and the Architecture program remain within this college.

Minority Opinion 0 out of 16 faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department College of ENV--Staff
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation A proposed School of Architecture is created in the College of Engineering to reinforce essential academic programs and recognize programs of distinction in the academic community.

ENV is known for producing “solution-oriented” designers/planners. The University should be investing in ENV and its programs rather than diluting its strengths by reassigning its programs. ENV was founded on the principles of environmental sensitivity/sustainability and should be viewed as a jewel in its academic crown. Dismantling its programs across campus would be counterproductive to the expressed goals of the President’s Climate Commitment initiative.

ENV promotes interdisciplinary learning to foster creative thinking. Each of the ENV disciplines is absolutely intentional in nature. ENV nurtures a creative model of thinking by promoting a “design culture” approach to complex physical, social and environmental ideals. This mirrors the practices of design and allied professions. Separating programs would diminish the quality of education available to students and disconnect them from industry practices, and decreases the effectiveness of each department. The proposal lessens the marketability of graduates and makes it difficult to attract/retain top-notch faculty and prospective students.

The combining of Architecture with the College of Engineering would no longer qualify it as unique to this region due to the fact there are other colleges that have this same set-up. Architecture is the design of the total built environment from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of construction details and, sometimes, furniture. Architectural design is primarily driven by the creative manipulation of mass, space, volume, texture, light, shadow, materials, program, and pragmatic elements such as cost, construction and technology, in order to achieve an end which is aesthetic, functional and often artistic. This distinguishes Architecture from engineering design, which is usually driven primarily by the creative application of mathematical and scientific principles. Architectural works are perceived as cultural and political symbols and works of art. How would Architecture be seen as a design discipline in a college of science?

Cost savings are unrealistic. The P & R Committee’s $800K savings would be offset by reconfiguration of programs into “mega-colleges”. Cost analysis: three deans reduced (3 x $170,000 = $510,000 savings), twelve new division heads/school directors (12 x $120,000 = $1,440,000 additional cost). NEW IMPACT: Increased cost of $930,000 per year. Factoring the costs required to attract/retain new faculty and department chairs, additional staff to run the larger programs, and other unforeseen operational costs, the savings will not outweigh the cost of implementation.

Potential loss in revenue from alumni, donors, current/retired faculty who would feel disenfranchised by this restructuring is evident from their comments to faculty/staff. Several contributors to the university have already expressed their concerns over these recommendations, with some even suspending their pledges until the outcome is known.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department ENV Dean's Office
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation ENV Dean’s Office Response to Proposal # 3:
A proposed School of Architecture is created in the College of Engineering

The College of Environmental Design was born out of need, and that need remains. The need is to produce design professionals in Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Art and Graphic Design, Urban & Regional Planning, and Regenerative Studies. The need is to provide the region with those highly educated professionals who will design our expanding cities; design energy efficient buildings and water-conserving landscapes; design our print and digital “virtual reality”; make systems recommendations for watersheds, transportation networks, energy use and distribution; create artwork that strengthens our ties to each other and the world – as well as hone our political conscience; and work with scientists and engineers to mitigate the past and optimize future construction. Together, designers play a critical role in a cast of professionals who make our natural and built environments work: our role is to harmonize the relationship of humans and nature by providing life-enhancing culturally and ecologically sustainable places.

Until the early twentieth century, society recognized two primary categories of knowledge: the sciences and the humanities. In the 1920s and ‘30s in the US and much earlier in Europe, a third category was identified: design knowledge. While design relies on the findings of and interaction with scientists and humanists, it is a separate realm. It is separate, in part,because designers use the right side of their brains to shape their solutions. There is no single best solution to each design problem the way there is one best answer to most engineering problems. In design there can be many good solutions, and the choice of which one will be implemented depends on the situation the client, the budget, a community’s values, and more. Designers certainly do use the left side of the brains, but the right side drives the visual, tactile, and overall interactive qualities of their solutions.

Those in a School of Architecture residing within a College of Engineering would be misunderstood by their colleagues. We, and our practicing colleagues, often hear comments that indicate that engineers think that design programs are “incomprehensibly arty”. Schools and departments of Architecture within Colleges of Engineering rarely if ever thrive. All the premier architecture programs (Minnesota, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Wisconsin, Rice) are in colleges of design. In this setting, allied with other design programs, there is collaboration that anticipates the post-graduate professional practice experience In ENV, students interact with and learn about those disciplines that they will work with most closely in their careers. Faculty members in these related fields often work together on scholarship, studio assignments, and outreach projects.

The Department of Architecture should not be moved to the College of Engineering, but rather engage Engineering where possible from within the College of Environmental Design. This Architecture program has an excellent reputation, as does the College of Environmental Design. This reputation is local, regional, and national. Moving the program would diminish its reputation. It is probable that fewer faculty would earn tenure and that the program would get fewer resources. Since it will remain half a campus away from Engineering, it certainly would have less visibility. While these risks may not materialize, it is difficult to see any positive outcome from such a move.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Recommendation: Architecture joining with Engineering.
The department as a whole felt that the process requires more time for communication and exploration of collaboration opportunities across the various programs on campus. We feel that the process is being rushed needlessly in a manner that will compromise the ability to obtain successful results from this process. Questions that seriously hinder our ability to recommend include but are not limited to: What is the demand for the different programs in the future? How would the resources for programs change?
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Landscape Architecture
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 16 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Department of Landscape Architecture believes that the separation of the Department of Architecture from the College of Environmental Design to a School of Architecture in the College of Engineering will have a negative impact upon the college of ENV and the University.

• The College of Environmental Design was developed under an umbrella of a common philosophy. Architecture is a critical component to a complete philosophy and practice of environmental design. The removal of architecture from the College of Environmental Design will impede the current philosophical basis of sustainability. This is an especially critical loss considering the University’s commitment to the climate, sustainability and environment.
• The separation obstructs the synergistic relationships between design disciplines. The latent capability of a college that collectively addresses the built environment in entirety is far greater than that of separate entities across campus.
• Unnecessary duplication of shared resources. A separation of the departments of the College of ENV will require the duplication of currently shared resources: visual reference library [slide library,] computer labs, galleries and presentation spaces, instructional services including printing and reproduction facilities, lecture series, student focused career days, model shop and study abroad programs will occur. This duplication will have a negative impact on budget issues for a “School of Architecture” and the remaining College of ENV and its individual departments.
• The recommendation instills Interdisciplinary losses, both formal and informal. Many interdisciplinary opportunities currently realized within the College of Environmental Design would be lost. These include formal interdisciplinary activities such as ENV 101 and 115 courses, the exchange program with Kyushu University in Japan and the study abroad program in China. In addition, the informal personal interactions of faculty and students and informal sharing of projects and directions will become more difficult.
• Links between professional organizations that represent the design disciplines [and their respective student chapters] are lost. The American Institute of Architects [AIA] will no longer have any direct connection to the American Society of Landscape Architects [ASLA] or the American Planning Association [APA] on Cal Poly’s campus. This can also be said for the student chapters of these organizations, whose losses will far outweigh the losses of the professional associations.
• This recommended separation reinforces the stereotypical relationships of the design disciplines as separate entities. Solving environmental problems takes collaborative efforts of the part of planners, landscape architects, architects and other design professionals to provide compelling visions for positive change. The professional reality is that design offices, studios and firms are multidisciplinary with employees with backgrounds in architecture, art, landscape architecture, and urban and regional planning. This is evidenced at Cal Poly by the participation of firms in the student run career day and the placement of our alumni in these multidisciplinary firms. Some of these include the most prestigious design firms nationally and internationally such as the National Park Service, EDAW, SWA, HOK, Disney Imagineering and Jones and Jones.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Office of Student Life & Cultural Centers
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The impact it would have on accreditation.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Orientation Services
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation If a School of ARCH is created within the CoE, there would be an inconsistent structure to the university because Collins School would be the only stand-alone. With this structure there is concern with a loss of credibility and the appearance that one college (the stand alone) is more important, more credible, more succcessful, etc. than the others.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Student Affairs Administration
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Architects and Engineers will spend their entire careers working together. Understanding each other's programs, issues, and challenges will benefit them as they move from the academic environment into the real world. But architects tend to be artists with creative personalities whereas most engineers are scientists and more methodical. A concerted effort will have to be made to meet the needs of both types of students if they are merged into one school. If undertaken, we strongly feel that Landscape Architecture and Planning should also be a part of this integration.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation This will have a negative impact on external funding and support to this College, it's programs, and potentially the University from industry and alumni alike.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 3
Department Urban and Regional Planning
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Department of Architecture should be housed in a college with Urban and Regional Planning (URP), Landscape Architecture, the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, and Graphic Design. A single college structure for these departments will support collaborations already underway and promote innovation and excellence. All of these departments share an interest in design, use the studio teaching method, and are working on applied problems in the world. In addition, these departments are leaders in issues of sustainability and community engagement. Interdisciplinary collaboration is more possible within a single college structure where the dean understands the nature of each department and can manage budget and FTES issues in a comprehensive way.

As evidence of the close relationships between URP and Architecture, the last two faculty hires in URP hold degrees in architecture. They were attracted to Cal Poly Pomona because of existing department relationships in ENV. In terms of coursework, URP and Architecture just completed the third year of an innovative joint studio at North China University. This program emerged from the “bottom up”, at the initiative of two junior faculty members with interests in China. The single college structure allowed the Dean to more effectively evaluate the program and manage its growth.

URP faculty, students, and alumni have strongly expressed the view that the planning program benefits from its relationships with Architecture.

There are many possible relationships between Architecture and Engineering, concerning construction management and computer-aided design. URP already has partnership with Engineering concerning transportation modeling and transportation research, showing that these bridges can be built without alternating the administrative structure.

Architecture needs more resources for faculty and more space so it can accommodate more of the demand for its impacted undergraduate program. This does not require a new college location. In fact, the best opportunities for gaining more space are found in an organizational structure such as the College of Environmental Design, where fundraising can target the numerous firms that have Planning, Landscape Architecture, and Architecture in their practice.

Synergies are best realized when partners are of equal status. Creating a special school status for architecture will reduce synergies and create additional administrative costs.

This proposal will harm more synergies than it creates, will create redundancies by requiring design education in three colleges rather than one, will not save resources, and will on balance reduce opportunities for research and external funding opportunities.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.