You are on page 1of 319

UNIVERSITY OF

WASHINGTON
2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
July 2017 Final Plan
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Executive Summary 4 Chapter 3
Growth Profile 28 Chapter 5
Vision, Principles and 84
Frameworks
Enrollment Trends 30
Long-Term Vision Informs the
Growth Allowance 31
Chapter 2
Introduction 14 10-year Conceptual Plan

Guiding Principles
86

88
Purpose and Process 16 Planning Frameworks 93
City-University Agreement 20
Chapter 4
Existing Conditions 36 Public Realm Framework 94
Planning Context and Assumptions 22 Shoreline Public Access Plan 108
Public Realm Framework 38
Physical Growth 26 Circulation and Parking
Circulation and Parking Framework 112
Framework 50
Built Environment Framework 122
Built Environment Framework 70
Inclusive Innovation Framework 128
Inclusive Innovation Framework 78
Sustainability Framework 132

Utility Framework 140

2 July 2017 Final Plan


Chapter 6
Project Review and 148 Chapter 7
Development 228 Chapter 10
Appendix 278
Design Guidance Standards
Public Participation Program 280
Introduction 150 Introduction 230
Primary and Secondary
Project Review 151 Development Standards 232 Impact Zones 288

Design Guidance 156 Definitions 254 Underlying Zoning Map 290


Central Campus 158
UW Building Inventory 292
West Campus 176

South Campus 196


Chapter 8
Transportation 258 Draft University District Green
Street Concept Plan 300
East Campus 210 Management Plan
Acknowledgments 314

Tables and Figures 316

Chapter 9
Housing 270
July 2017 Final Plan 3
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
4 July 2017 Final Plan
July 2017 Final Plan 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT
The 2018 Campus Master Plan (CMP) is the
primary regulatory vehicle for the University’s
future development, defining both the square
footage to be constructed and the geographic
location of such development. The CMP applies
to the Seattle campus and the University’s
property located within the Major Institution
Overlay, or MIO, and is guided by the City-
University Agreement between the University of
Washington and the City of Seattle.

This CMP builds on the 2003 Campus Master


Plan. The University has been a national leader
in campus planning, design, and construction,
successfully implementing a significant number
of capital projects anticipated in the 2003 Plan.
Such growth means that the University has
approximately 211,000 net gross square feet of
development left out of the 3.0 million gross
square feet approved in the 2003 Campus Master
Plan.

Work on this CMP began in 2015 so that by 2018,


the 2018 CMP would be in place to accommodate
the Seattle campus’ growth demands. Between
2015 and 2018, the University of Washington
developed this long-term vision for the Seattle
campus as well as a 10-year conceptual plan for
campus growth that balances the preservation of
historic campus assets with intensive investment.

Reflecting the participation of a campus-wide


advisory committee and multiple stakeholders,
this CMP is shaped by the strategic goals and the Figure 1. Existing Conditions Aerial Image, 2016.
academic, research, and service missions of the
University, all of which shall guide the physical
development of the campus during the life of the
2018 CMP.

6 Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan


GROWTH ALLOWANCE
The general approach underlying this CMP is to
align the Seattle campus’ evolving needs for a 10-
year conceptual plan within the long-term vision
for the campus. Issues considered in the 10-year
planning horizon are anticipated enrollment growth,
increased teaching and research demands, future
transportation needs, economic growth, and the
needs of the University community.

The University’s growth allowance in this CMP is 6.0


million net new gross square feet of development.
This CMP identifies 86 potential development sites
NE 45th St
to accommodate the anticipated growth. Each
15th Ave NE

potential development site is defined in terms of


maximum height and total maximum gross square
feet. The 86 potential development sites contain
a maximum development potential of almost 12
NE 41st St million net new gross square feet of development,
of which only 6.0 million net new gross square feet
E

may be developed under the growth allowance. The


lvd N

potential development sites are spread throughout


lake B
e

four campus sectors with general development


dg
B ri

limits as follows:
M o nt
ty
rsi

Central Campus
ive

NE
Un

Pa
c ifi
900,000 net new gross square feet
cS
t
West Campus
3,000,000 net new gross square feet

South Campus
1,350,000 net new gross square feet

East Campus
Figure 2. Long-Term Vision. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only 750,000 net new gross square feet

Potential Building
Total Seattle Campus Growth Allowance
6,000,000 net new gross square feet
Existing Building

Potential Open Space


Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan 7
The 10-year planning horizon establishes the and minimizes adverse impacts upon the City in the Development Standards Chpater on
analytical basis of this CMP. However, the and campus environments, particularly to pages 251 through 253. Development sites are
CMP shall remain in effect until the growth communities surrounding the University, and also limited throughout Central Campus to
allowance has been fully developed or a new promotes the health and vitality of residential, maintain the traditional campus setting.
campus master plan is approved. business, and academic communities.

Community outreach has been a major part GUIDING PRINCIPLES


2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER of the CMP planning process. The University The CMP creates a framework designed to
PLAN CONTENT believes this CMP reflects the interests of enable the UW’s continued evolution as a
the large and diverse communities it serves. 21st century public higher education research
The 2018 CMP includes recommendations
To achieve this, the University facilitated and service institution. The CMP balances
for open space, circulation, transportation,
and encouraged meaningful and ongoing preservation of historic campus assets with
and physical development (Chapter 5 -
community involvement throughout the increased density, and relies on the University’s
Vision, Principles, Frameworks). Uses for
planning process. The Public Participation strategic goals, academic, research, and
new construction projects all help fulfill
Program, which documents this involvement, is service missions, and capital plan objectives,
the University’s mission and are considered
included in the Appendix on page 280. to inform the physical development of the
“academic.” These uses are further defined
in the Development Standards chapter campus. Five overarching principles guide the
Open space recommendations presented in
found on page 256. It is impossible to 2018 CMP:
the CMP reinforce the University’s commitment
predict specific categories of academic uses to the creation and stewardship of campus
on specific sites because of the dynamic open space and landscape features. The CMP
nature of education, continual changes in builds upon and preserves the existing open
technology, and the uncertainty of funding space structure, which includes Red Square,
sources for new construction. Thus, this Rainier Vista, the Liberal Arts Quad, Olympic Flexible Framework
CMP creates a development framework Vista, Parrington Lawn, Denny Field, Denny
to guide the 6.0 million growth allowance. Create a lasting and flexible planning
Yard, the HUB Yard, Portage Bay Vista, and the
Potential development sites (pages 124 to framework to guide development of
Union Bay Natural Area, among others. New
125), development standards (pages 228 to University projects during the identification
open spaces introduced in this CMP include the
257) and design guidance (pages 156 to 157) of a development site and implementation
West Campus Green, South Campus Green,
outline how each site would be developed. of development guidelines and standards in
East Campus Connection, and the Continuous
Specific development sites and their desired support of the University of Washington’s
Waterfront Trail. In addition to open spaces,
development characteristics are described education, research, and service missions.
the CMP situates development in a manner
in the Project Review and Design Guidance that preserves and reinforces the following view
chapter of this document, pages 148 to 227. corridors: the Rainier Vista, Olympic Vista, and
Portage Bay Vista; the view toward the Portage
Both the City and the University recognize
Bay waterfront across the South Campus
the need for coordinated planning that
Green; the view south to Portage Bay across Learning Based Academic and
allows the University to continue to pursue its
the West Campus Green; and the mountain Research Partnerships
instruction, research, and service missions.
and water views east across and from the East
At the same time, the CMP planning process Support and catalyze academic, teaching and
Campus Connection, and along and from the
is intended to foresee, assess, and outline research partnerships with allied industries;
pedestrian walk on Snohomish Lane between
mitigation measures for the potential direct, contribute to a highly livable innovation
Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science
indirect, and cumulative impacts of long-term environment; and stimulate job growth and
Engineering II. View corridors are identified
development. This maximizes positive effects community and economic development.

8 Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan


CAMPUS SECTORS
The CMP includes specific strategies and connectivity, and built environment. The big
recommendations for each of the four campus moves for each sector are identified on the
sectors: Central Campus, West Campus, South following pages, and are discussed in greater
Sustainable Development Campus, and East Campus. Big moves in each detail in Chapter 6 - Project Review and Design
Implement the UW’s commitment to sector reinforce both the guiding principles Guidance, on pages 148 through 227.
sustainable land use through the preservation as well as the long-term vision for each
and utilization of its existing property and the campus sector, and address the public realm,
balance of development, open space, and
public use.

EAST

15th Ave NE
EAST

Connectivity
NE 45th St
Extend the UW’s commitment to better
connect the University internally and with its
broader context.

CENTRAL
CAMPUS EAST
Stewardship of Historic, Cultural, WEST 215 Acres CAMPUS
and Ecological Resources CAMPUS 298 Acres
Continue responsible and proactive 69 Acres
e

stewardship of the UW’s campus assets


dg
B ri

through preservation of its historic, cultural,


ty

and ecological resources and strategic


rsi
ive

property development.
SOUTH
Un

CAMPUS
57 Acres

Figure 3. Campus Sectors

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan 9


Central Campus Significant Pedestrian Path
Central Campus is a hub of learning activity Significant Open Space
and knowledge sharing, and accommodates
Active Ground Floor
many academic and research facilities.
Central Campus is home to the culturally Existing Building
significant academic core and is characterized
Potential Building
by significant open spaces framed by a mix
of historic and new buildings. The long-term Gateway
vision for Central Campus:

Enhances gateways. NE 45th


Street
Concentrates new development at the
periphery to minimize interference with
15 t

NORTH
hA

CAMPUS
the existing campus character.
ve

HOUSING
NE

PU S
C AM
E A ST ECTION
LIBER AL N N
CO
ARTS QU
TON AD
Enhances connections
RIN G
PAR AWN
L to West, South, and East
Campuses.
Preserves and
Provides additional
enhances the
capacity to support
character of
the University’s
the culturally
educational,
significant setting
research and
and its significant
service missions.
buildings and open
RA
spaces.

Mo
INI
ER

nt
VI S
TA

la
ke
Creates an active

B
l vd
edge along 15th
Avenue.

Maintains existing Pacific Street

building heights.
Creates an integrated
network of pathways
Figure 4. Central Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

10 Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan


West Campus Significant Pedestrian Path

West Campus is the most urban of the four partners, and a significant supply of the UW- Significant Open Space
campus sectors and accommodates a wide operated student housing, West Campus
Active Ground Floor
range of uses including student housing, is uniquely positioned to develop as an
academic, research, and cultural programs. “innovation district” within the broader Seattle Existing Building
Given its regional transportation access from region (see page 78 for more detail on the
Potential Building
I-5, regional transit services, retail, research UW’s history of innovation activity). The long-
in numerous fields, as well as cafes, industry term vision for West Campus: Gateway

Potential Street Vacation

Extends and re-establishes the street Increases development capacity and


grid, and improves connections with the balances dense development with access to

Br
oo
adjacent University District. open space.

kl
yn
Av
Enhances connections

enu
with Central Campus.

e
Creates pedestrian-scaled
Connects the campus and development parcels
University District to the and activates street life
waterfront. with ground floor active
destinations.

BELVEDERE
PLAZA

Burke-G
ilman Trai
l

Pacific St
reet

MP US
T CA Reinforces east-west
WE S R E E N
G
connections with
South Campus.
ge

CIT Y OF SEATTL
ri d

E
PORTAGE BAY PA
yB

RK
rsit

Provides flexible building footprints Organizes development around a


i ve
Un

and massing to accommodate a range proposed public open space that


of functions, including academic and functions as the heart of West
research partnerships. PORTAGE BAY
Campus.

Figure 5. West Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan 11


South Campus Significant Pedestrian Path

South Campus supports the UW’s Health is largely inaccessible. Its monolithic structure Significant Open Space
Sciences functions and the Medical Center. It is dense and disorienting both inside and out.
Active Ground Floor
is home to academic, research, and clinical In South Campus, the CMP proposes the long-
functions for the University’s six health term redevelopment of much of the health Existing Building
sciences schools and assorted environmental sciences complex incrementally. The long-term Potential Building
and natural settings, along a waterfront that vision for South Campus:
Gateway

Reduces the scale of development in a


Creates an inviting,

Mo
manner that promotes school identity,

nt
functional, and

la
orientation and connectivity.

ke
Increases development attractive public realm.

Bl vd
Improves access to West, Central, capacity, and creates a
and East Campus through state-of-the-art health
enhanced pedestrian connections. sciences complex and
academic medical center. Building heights
Pacific St
step down closer
reet
to the water.

MP US
T CA
WE S R E E N
G

SOUTH C
AMPUS
GREEN
UT
EC
L AK
NT
MO

Celebrates waterfront location with a shared campus green, courtyards and upper Creates a continuous
terraces. This open space corridor provides major pedestrian connections between waterfront trail.
Central and South Campus, and creates a permanent view corridor to the water.
Figure 6. South Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

12 Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan


East Campus Significant Pedestrian Path

East Campus currently accommodates is built on a methane-producing landfill and Significant Open Space
the Union Bay Natural Area, athletics, constitutes a seismic liquefaction zone, adding
Active Ground Floor
recreational, and other University facilities, cost to building construction in this location.
and parking to support sporting events and The long-term vision for East Campus: Existing Building
campus commuters. Much of East Campus Potential Building

Gateway

Enhances the gateway at

et
Pend Oreille.

tre
Improves connections between

cS
East and Central Campus.
cifi
Pa

Balances public realm and open RSI


TY
IVE
space along the waterfront with UN LL AGE
VI
dense development maximizing
productive land use. Blvd
Montlake

OF
TY ON Road
RSI STATI Walla
IVE Walla
UN GTON
N
SHI
WA

Preserves athletics uses while


developing existing parking
lots for future academic uses,
industry partnerships, and
academic conference spaces.

Transforms a former UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

brownfield site into a vibrant


and desirable campus Integrates with Union Bay
UNION BAY
sector. Natural Area trail network.

Figure 7. East Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan 13


2INTRODUCTION

14 July 2017 Final Plan


•• PURPOSE AND PROCESS

•• CITY-UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT

•• PLANNING CONTEXT AND ASSUMPTIONS

•• PHYSICAL GROWTH

July 2017 Final Plan 15


PURPOSE AND
PROCESS
The University of Washington is one of the MISSION STATEMENT PURPOSE AND PROCESS
world’s preeminent public universities. Its
impact on individuals, on the region, and on The primary mission of the University of The University of Washington’s long-term
the world is profound — whether it is launching Washington is the preservation, advancement, vision for the Seattle campus informs its 10-
young people into a boundless future or and dissemination of knowledge. The year conceptual plan for campus growth that
confronting the grand challenges of our time University preserves knowledge through its balances the preservation of historic campus
through undaunted research and scholarship. libraries and collections, its courses, and the assets with intensive investment. Individual
Educating more than 54,000 students annually scholarship of its faculty. It advances new sector plans including the West Campus
on its three campuses, students, faculty, and knowledge through many forms of research, Development Framework, South Campus
staff at the University of Washington work inquiry and discussion; and disseminates it Study Phase II, East Campus Planning Study,
together to turn ideas into impact, and in the through the classroom and the laboratory, and the Campus Landscape Framework are
process transform lives and our world. scholarly exchanges, creative practice, prior planning efforts foundational to this CMP.
international education, and public service.
While the University of Washington has As one of the nation’s most highly respected Issues considered in the 10-year planning
three major campuses, located in Seattle, teaching and research institutions, the period are anticipated enrollment growth,
Bothell, and Tacoma this master planning University is committed to maintaining an increased teaching and research demands,
effort focuses on its Seattle campus. The environment for objectivity and imaginative future transportation needs, economic growth,
2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan (CMP) is inquiry and for the original scholarship and and the needs of the University community.
approved by the Seattle City Council and the research that ensure the production of new Reflecting the participation of a campus-
UW Board of Regents. The CMP serves as the knowledge in the free exchange of facts, wide advisory committee and multiple
primary regulatory vehicle for the University’s theories, and ideas. stakeholders, this CMP is shaped by strategic
future development, defining the growth goals and academic, research, and service
allowance to be constructed and the potential The University fosters an environment in missions of the University to guide the physical
geographic locations for such development. which its students can develop and exercise development of the campus during the life of
This CMP also provides a long-term mature and independent judgment and an the CMP.
aspirational vision for future development, and appreciation of the range and diversity of
human achievement. The Seattle CMP process is guided by the
includes a public realm strategy that serves City-University Agreement between the
the campus and surrounding community University of Washington and the City of
with significant open spaces and enhanced Seattle. The University of Washington’s
connections.

16 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan


2016 Bird’s Eye View of the Seattle Campus Looking North
Figure 8.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan 17


previous plan was its 2003 Campus Master and buildings that successfully supports the new construction projects all help fulfill
Plan. Since then, the University has been a campus mission. Growth, evolving functional the University’s mission and are considered
national leader in campus planning, design, needs, and changing technologies necessitate “academic.” These uses are further defined
and construction, successfully implementing a development that supports the University in the Development Standards chapter
significant number of possible capital projects mission. This CMP has been formulated to found on page 256. It is impossible to
anticipated in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. maintain and enhance the fundamental predict specific categories of academic uses
Such growth means that the University has mission of the University, its multiple on specific sites because of the dynamic
approximately 211,000 gross square feet of important roles in undergraduate, graduate, nature of education, continual changes in
development left out of the 3.0 million gross and professional education, and its dedication technology, and the uncertainty of funding
square feet approved in the 2003 Campus to research and public service. sources for new construction. Thus, this
Master Plan. Work on this CMP began in 2015 CMP creates a development framework
so that by 2018, the CMP would be in place to This CMP conserves and enhances the open to guide the 6.0 million growth allowance.
accommodate the new growth requirements. space of the campus and guides future Potential development sites (pages 124 to
development. It describes characteristics and 125), development standards (pages 228 to
This CMP follows, builds on, and replaces the built environment components of the campus 257) and design guidance (pages 156 to 157)
2003 Seattle Campus Master Plan, extending physical environment which shall guide outline how each site would be developed.
the continuity of planning developed over the future design and decisions that impact the Specific development sites and their desired
history of the University of Washington. This campus, the environment, and surrounding development characteristics are described
CMP includes guidelines and development communities. The scope of the CMP includes in the Project Review and Design Guidance
standards for developing 6.0 million net new defining future open spaces, circulation chapter of this document, pages 148 to 227.
gross square feet of development on the patterns, building sites, and campus physical
Seattle campus. capacity along with planned growth. Impacts Both the City and the University recognize
on the campus and the primary and secondary the need for coordinated planning that
The physical assets of the campus are located impact zones of surrounding communities are allows the University to continue to pursue
within boundaries designated by a Major analyzed through the EIS process. its instruction, research, and service goals.
Institutional Overlay (MIO) as established At the same time, the CMP planning process
by Ordinance 112317 and subsequently The 2018 CMP includes recommendations is intended to foresee, assess, and outline
amended. Together these assets form a for open space, circulation, transportation, mitigation measures for the potential direct,
campus structure of open space, circulation, and physical development (Chapter 5 - indirect, and cumulative impacts of long-term
Vision, Principles, Frameworks). Uses for

18 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan


development. This maximizes positive effects
and minimizes adverse impacts upon the city
and campus environments, particularly to
communities surrounding the University, and
promotes the health and vitality of residential,
business, and academic communities.

Community outreach has been a major part


of the planning process. The University believes
this CMP reflects the interests of the large
and diverse communities it serves. To achieve
this, the University facilitated and encouraged
meaningful and ongoing community
involvement throughout the planning process.
The Public Participation Program, which
documents this involvement, is included in the
Appendix on page 280.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan 19


THE CITY-UNIVERSITY
AGREEMENT
The elements considered in the development location of any proposed development and improvements, and proposed means of
of this Campus Master Plan are those outlined proposed alternatives (page 234 to 237). increasing energy efficiency (pages 140 to
in the City-University Agreement. The City- 147).
University Agreement requires the University •• The institutional zone (page 26) and
to formulate a 10-year conceptual Master development standards to be used by the •• A description of alternative proposals
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.1 University (pages 232 to 253). for physical development including
The University worked closely with the City- explanation of the reasons for considering
•• A general description of existing and each alternative has been provided in the
University Community Advisory Committee
proposed parking facilities (pages 69 EIS.
(CUCAC), and the City Department of
and 121) and bicycle (pages 59 and 115),
Neighborhoods and Construction and
pedestrian (pages 53 and 113), and traffic •• Proposed development phases, including
Inspections to assure that all required
circulation systems (pages 61, 63, 117, and development priorities, an estimated
elements of the Campus Master Plan were
119) within the University boundaries and timetable for proposed developments, and
addressed. Elements that are addressed in the
their relationship to the external street proposed interim uses of property awaiting
Campus Master Plan include:
system. development (page 151).
•• Current boundaries and any proposed
•• A Transportation Management Plan •• A description of any proposed street or
boundary changes (page 26). No changes
(TMP) which includes a menu of specific alley vacation (pages 118 to 119).
are being proposed.
University programs to minimize traffic
impacts and encourage the use of public •• Proposed changes to the land acquisition
•• Proposed non-institutional zone
transit, carpools, vanpools, and other and leasing policy. No changes are being
designations for areas within the
alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles proposed but the current land acquisition
boundaries. No changes are being
(pages 258 to 269). A broader discussion of and leasing policies are listed on page 155
proposed.
the TMP is provided in the Transportation in the Project Review and Design Guidance
•• A site plan designating height and location Discipline Report of the Campus Master chapter (pages 148 to 227).
of existing facilities (page 75), location of Plan EIS.
existing and proposed open space (pages
41 and 97), landscaping and screening •• A general description of future energy 1 The University’s 10-year planning horizon is based on this requirement.

(page 45 to 47), and general use and and utility needs, system and capacity Consistent with the planning horizon of the GPDP and the 2003 Campus

Master Plan, this 2018 Campus Master Plan shall remain in effect until the

growth allowance of 6.0 million net new gross square feet is constructed or a

new master plan is approved. The development of a new master plan shall not

be required unless changes in the planning context and assumptions warrant.

20 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan


Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan 21
PLANNING CONTEXT AND
ASSUMPTIONS
REGIONAL SETTING NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The University of Washington is comprised The University of Washington is situated within
of three campuses including locations in Seattle’s University District, an “urban center”
Bothell—12 miles to the north, Tacoma—36 according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
miles to the south, along with its campus in and is bounded by I-5 on the west, Ravenna
Seattle. The Seattle campus benefits from and NE 45th street to the north, 15th Ave NE
its proximity to downtown Seattle and local on the east, and the shoreline to the south.
and regional transit facilities including Sound The University District is home to a significant
Transit’s North Link connecting the University portion of off-campus student housing,
of Washington Station and the U District cafes, and amenities, including the University
Station to downtown Seattle and Northgate Bookstore, located along University Way, also
by 2021. referred to as “The Ave.” The University owns
and leases space throughout the University
District, notably the UW Tower; such properties
fall outside the Major Institution Overlay, or
MIO.

The University’s broader neighborhood context


includes ten surrounding neighborhoods, all
of which are located within a ten-minute walk
from campus. The surrounding neighborhoods
include Roosevelt, University Park, the
University District, Wallingford, Eastlake,
Laurelhurst, Montlake, Portage Bay Roanoke,
Ravenna, and Bryant. Off-campus student
housing and Greek housing are concentrated
throughout University Park and the University
District.

Figure 9. Regional Context (above) and Figure 10.


Neighborhoods around the University (opposite)

22 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan


Neighborhood Planning Context
Figure 10.

NE 45th St

15th Ave NE
I-5

NE 41st St

University of

E
lvd N
Washington

lake B
M o nt
e
id g
Br
ty
rsi

NE
ive

Pa
c
Un

ifi
cS
t

MIO Boundary

University Community Urban


Center Boundary

520

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan 23


REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND
PLANNING PROCESS CAPITAL BUDGETING
This CMP reflects the context of the are in addition to those included in the 1. The Campus Master Plan is intended as
University’s ongoing planning and capital City’s Major Institutions Code, consistent a framework for future development of
budgeting process, and the related growth with the City-University Agreement. A capital projects. The University’s biennial
forecasts and assumptions which are Major Institution Overlay (MIO) district capital budgeting process is the primary
described in the Environmental Impact and boundaries are established through basis for the identification of specific
Statement. the CMP adoption and city ordinance. facility needs and priorities.

1. The University of Washington Board 4. The University shall comply with the 2. Not all projects included in the capital
of Regents exercises full control of the provisions of the State Environmental budgets are included in the Campus
University and its property, except as Policy Act (SEPA) in the review and Master Plan. Projects categorically
otherwise provided by State law. approval of the CMP. The University is exempt from SEPA review are not included
the SEPA Lead Agency per RCW 43.21C, in all instances, such as buildings less
2. The University has an established planning WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 478-324, and is than 12,000 gross square feet, in-fill
process which involves many standing responsible for SEPA compliance. development of existing buildings,
committees including the following temporary facilities, renovation projects
committees (or their successors) the 5. The University shall comply with the that do not involve material expansion,
University Budget Committee, the provisions of the Seattle Shoreline Master and other projects.
Capital Budget Committee, the Board of Program and other applicable State or
Deans, the UW Architectural Commission Federal laws. 3. The Campus Master Plan and the capital
(UWAC), the Faculty Council on University budgeting process provide long-term
Facilities and Services (FCUFS), the flexibility to accommodate unexpected
University Landscape Advisory Committee continuous program changes as well as
(ULAC), the University Transportation State and National initiatives.
Committee, Design Review Board (DRB),
and the State Environmental Policy Act
Advisory Committee.

3. The City-University Agreement governs


preparation of the CMP. The CMP includes
design guidance, development standards,
and other elements which differ from or

24 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan


RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
PLANS DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
1. The Campus Master Plan adopted in 2003 1. The University owns approximately 639
remains in effect until this 2018 Campus acres within the campus boundaries (page
Master Plan is adopted by the University of 38). Five non-University owned properties
Washington Board of Regents and Seattle are located within the MIO boundaries.
City Council.
2. The campus includes approximately 12,000
2. The remaining development capacity linear feet of shoreline which is subject to
under the 2003 Campus Master Plan at the regulations of the Seattle Shoreline
the time of publication of the 2018 CMP is Master Program adopted pursuant to
approximately 211,000 gross square feet. the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
These regulations extend landward for 200
3. The Campus Master Plan does not include feet, and place stringent restrictions on
the University’s plans for the Tacoma or approximately 55 acres of campus (page
Bothell campuses. 108).
4. The University can purchase and lease 3. West Campus is bisected by numerous
property according to the City-University City streets which may have implications
Agreement. for development.

4. The campus contains substantial


landscaped open space which the
University is committed to conserve for
historical, aesthetic, functional, and
environmental reasons (see page 41).

5. Detailed information regarding the existing


conditions of the campus is included in
this document as well as in the EIS and has
been considered in the development of this
Campus Master Plan.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan 25


PHYSICAL GROWTH
Within the MIO boundary, as of September
2016, the University housed its functions
in 16.6 million gross square feet of space.

Roosevelt Rd NE
11th Ave NE

15th Ave NE
16th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

19th Ave NE
18th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
21st Ave NE
To accommodate both the increase in the
number of students as well as the continued
growth in the area of academics, research,

I-5
academic and research partnerships, and
service, an additional 6.0 million net new gross NE 45th St NE 45th St

square feet of space is required.


NE 43rd St
A vision for the long-term physical build-out
for the Seattle Campus is the foundation for NE 42nd St
this Master Plan. The long-term build-out of
the campus utilizes 86 potential development NE 41st St
sites within the existing MIO boundary. No

E
lvd N
expansion of or change to the MIO boundary
is planned in this CMP. The 86 potential College Inn

lake B
SDOT
development sites enable a maximum

M o nt
development potential of almost 12.0 million Church of Latter
e
dg

gross square feet of net new development (see Day Saints


B ri
ty

table on page 86).


rsi
ive

NE
I-5

During the planning horizon of this CMP, the Pa


Un

City of Seattle c ifi


University may build a total of 6.0 million net Portage Bay Park
cS
t
new gross square feet on some of the 86 sites.
Identification of specific sites and phasing to Jensen Motor
accommodate the 6.0 million net new gross Boat Company
square feet shall be determined through
the University’s annual capital planning and
budgeting processes.

Figure 11. University and Non-Institutional Uses

MIO Boundary

University-owned Facility Within the MIO

Non-Institutional Use (Not Owned by the


UW)

26 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan


Any non-institutional use has to comply with
underlying zoning. Non-Institutional uses
within the MIO include:

•• Church of Latter Day Saints


MIO-65-NC3-65
Neighborhood Commercial 3

•• College Inn
MIO-65-NC3-65
Neighborhood Commercial 3

•• Jensen Motor Boat Company


MIO-37-IC-45
Industrial Commercial

•• City of Seattle Portage Bay Park (Seattle


Parks and Recreation) and the Brooklyn
Street end park which is a portion of
Sukuma Viewpoint park
MIO-37-IC-45
Industrial Commercial

•• Seattle Department of Transportation


MIO-65-IC-45
Industrial Commercial

The University does not propose to change the


zoning for non-University uses.

For underlying zoning within the University’s


MIO boundary, please refer to the City of
Seattle’s Official Zoning Map, copies of which
are included on page 290.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan 27


3 GROWTH PROFILE

28 July 2017 Final Plan


•• ENROLLMENT TRENDS

•• GROWTH ALLOWANCE

July 2017 Final Plan 29


ENROLLMENT
TRENDS
Table 1. Student, Faculty and Staff Figures
SUMMARY
The 10-year conceptual plan contained in this 2014 2018 2028
2014 - 2028
% CHANGE
DIFFERENCE
Campus Master Plan (CMP) considers the
projected enrollment growth over the 2018 to Total Student Population (FTE) 43,724 47,219 52,399 8,675 20%
2028 time period. Table 1 shows a 15% increase
in enrollment growth during that time period. Staff (FTE) 16,324 17,629 19,563 3,239 20%

The total enrollment growth between 2014 Faculty (FTE) 7,107 7,675 8,517 1,410 20%
(when planning for this CMP began) and 2028
is 20%. Total Population (FTE) 67,155 72,523 80,479 13,324

STUDENT POPULATION
Total student population in 2014 was roughly FACULTY AND STAFF
43,725 full time equivalent students (FTE).
Looking forward, total student enrollment As of fall 2014, the University employed roughly
is projected to grow by 8,675 FTE to 52,400 16,325 FTE staff and 7,100 FTE faculty. Future
FTE students in 2028. Future enrollment faculty and staff figures were determined
was projected using a straight line trend by maintaining the 2014 student to faculty
analysis of historic enrollment data, and an and student to staff ratios over the 2015 to
analysis of Washington State graduation rate 2028 timeframe. This methodology generates
data. Feedback from University’s Enrollment a total future faculty of roughly 8,517 FTE
Committee was also considered. faculty, and a future staff population of
roughly 19,563 FTE staff.

30 Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan


GROWTH
ALLOWANCE
GROWTH ALLOWANCE
The University’s growth allowance of 6.0
million net new gross square feet supports the
2028 campus population projection. A number
of analyses were conducted to inform the
requested growth allowance including:

•• Benchmarking the UW’s Seattle campus


space against peer institutions;

•• Modeling the UW’s campus space needs;

•• Analyzing the UW’s Seattle campus


development history; and

•• Considering the potential for academic


and research partnership space.

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan 31


BENCHMARKING
Benchmarking compares the University’s athletics and recreation space, and student
existing space to space at other higher life space.
education institutions. Institutions with
similar characteristics, such as large public •• Across all space categories, the University
institutions with a research focus, were of Washington recorded space levels on
selected as the basis for benchmarking. The the lower end of the spectrum compared
University of Michigan, University of Texas to peer institutions, which suggests the
at Austin, The Ohio State University, Rutgers need for additional space to meet current
University, and Johns Hopkins University and future student populations.
were identified as peer institutions by the
•• Benchmarking only assesses space from
Capital Planning and Development office
a quantitative perspective, and does not
for the benchmarking analysis. The UW’s
address the quality of the space. In many
existing space was benchmarked against its
categories, the University of Washington is
peers on an assignable square foot (asf) per
regarded as a leader in terms of facilities
student FTE basis for classrooms, teaching and
quality.
research labs, offices, study and library space,

32 Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan


Table 2. Benchmarking Summary (assignable square feet per student FTE)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
CLASSROOMS TEACHING & OFFICES STUDY ATHLETICS & STUDENT
RESEARCH RECREATION LIFE
LABS

Rutgers University University of Washington The Ohio State University

UT Austin Johns Hopkins University - University of Michigan -


Homewood Ann Arbor

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan 33


Table 3. 2028 Space Needs Determined by the Space Needs Model by Category (gross square feet*)

7.0 M
Deficit
Deficit 245,000 gsf
1,912,000 gsf
6.0 M

5.0 M

4.0 M

3.0 M
Deficit
727,000 gsf
Deficit
953,000 gsf
2.0 M
Deficit
Deficit
Deficit 367,000 gsf
375,500 gsf
222,000 gsf
1.0 M Deficit
98,500 gsf

0
TEACHING RESEARCH LIBRARY / STUDENT STUDENT
CLASSROOMS OFFICES RECREATION
LABS LABS STUDY LIFE HOUSING

Existing Space *Assumes 61.5% Net to Gross Square Feet

Deficit includes existing and projected deficit


Space Need at 2028
Deficits provide an indication of a specific space needs and are based on
existing FTE and projected FTE figures
34 Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan
SPACE NEEDS MODEL
The space needs model compares the Space Needs Model Findings •• By 2028, the University shall have 10,870
University’s existing space on the Seattle beds in its stock, assuming that all phases
campus against projected need for a variety of KEY FINDINGS of the North Campus Housing (including
higher education space categories including: The model compares existing space Haggett Hall replacement) are complete.
against projected need to support the 2028 This suggests a need for 658 net new beds
•• Classrooms population. The difference between the two by 2028.
•• Teaching labs figures reveals the space deficit.
•• Applying the University’s existing gross
•• The collective space deficit associated with square feet per bed of 372 gross square
•• Research labs feet for a suite-style bed generates a
the 2028 population approaches 3,115,000
•• Offices assignable square feet, or 5,065,000 gross total housing space need of 245,000 gross
square feet assuming a 61.5 percent net to square feet in 2028.
•• Sports and recreation gross ratio.
INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP SPACE
•• Student life space •• While this figure accounts for traditional
The space needs model does not project
higher education space types, it does
•• Student housing the square footage need for partnership
not account for academic and research
space. The CMP allocates between 500,000
The model is based on national space partnership space.
to 1,000,000 gross square feet of space for
guidelines, notably guidelines developed by future partnerships. This is sufficient space to
CEFPI (the Council of Educational Facilities STUDENT HOUSING
generate a critical mass of activity in support
Planners, International), and assumptions Space needed to support student housing of a thriving innovation district. Within the
around enrollment levels, utilization and is determined as a percentage of the overall 500,000 to 1,000,000 gross square feet of
occupancy rates, and best practices for space student population. The model does not space, it is anticipated that one-quarter to
factors, etc. The model does not account for account for faculty staff housing. one-half of the people in the buildings would
academic and research partnership spaces, be non-University employees. These could be
which are analyzed separately. The model uses •• For master planning purposes, it is employees associated with our governmental
2028 student, faculty, and staff population assumed that 22 percent of the overall partners at The National Oceanic and
levels determined during the enrollment trends student population shall be housed on Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The
analysis to determine space needs. campus in the future. The University Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL),
currently houses 20 percent of the student or other private partners.
Existing Space population.
As of 2014, the University of Washington •• A future student population of 52,400 FTE
recorded roughly 16.6 million gross square feet translates into the need for roughly 11,528
of space located within the Major Institutional total beds on campus.
Overlay (MIO). This does not account for any
space associated with parking structures.

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan 35


4 EXISTING
CONDITIONS
36 July 2017 Final Plan
•• PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK

•• CIRCULATION & PARKING FRAMEWORK

•• BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK

•• INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK

July 2017 Final Plan 37


PUBLIC REALM
FRAMEWORK
FOUR CAMPUS SECTORS
The campus is broadly organized into four
EAST
campus sectors including West Campus, South
Campus, Central Campus, and East Campus.

15th Ave NE
The four campus sectors reflect varied scales,
characters, and functions that collectively EAST
comprise the campus setting.
NE 45th St

CENTRAL
CAMPUS EAST
WEST 215 Acres CAMPUS
CAMPUS 298 Acres
69 Acres
e
dg
B ri
ty
rsi
ive
Un

SOUTH
CAMPUS
57 Acres
TOTAL SEATTLE CAMPUS
639 Acres

Figure 12. Campus sectors

38 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Figure 13. Central Campus looking south Figure 14. West Campus looking north

Figure 15. South Campus looking west Figure 16. East Campus looking southwest

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 39


CAMPUS ORGANIZATION
The campus is organized around four primary
radial axes that extend from Red Square in
varying directions. These axes function as
key campus organizing elements as well as
prominent view corridors.

•• Rainier Vista incorporates Drumheller


Fountain, and serves as the primary
organizing axis for the campus, providing
breathtaking views of Mount Rainier to the
southeast. Rainier Vista was designed by
the Olmsted Brothers for the 1909 Alaska-
Yukon-Pacific Exposition, and was recently
improved to better integrate with the new
University of Washington light rail station.

•• The Liberal Arts Quad serves as the


northeast axis that links the core campus
to the north campus housing. The Liberal Figure 17. Rainier Vista
Arts Quad functions as the primary
academic quad and is known for its iconic
cherry blossoms.

Y
L WA
•• Lined with mature London Plane trees,
Memorial Way is the main, ceremonial

ORIA
entrance to campus and defines the
primary axis to the north.

MEM
U AD
T SQ
•• The view from the George Washington AR
AL
statue toward Campus Parkway is the ER
Red LIB
primary access to the west and has been OLYMPIC VISTA
Square
characterized as Olympic Vista for its
views of the mountain range to the west.

R
A
ST

A
•• In addition to the four axes, Portage Bay VI

IN
AY

IE
Vista first identified as part of a Property EB

R
G

V
Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) TA

IS
R
PO

TA
for the vacation of 15th Avenue south of
Pacific Street, has emerged as a strong
view corridor to the southwest.
Figure 18. Primary Organizational Axes

40 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Unique and Significant Landscapes
Figure 19.

UNIQUE AND SIGNIFICANT


LANDSCAPES
Significant landscapes are identified in the
Existing Pedestrian Paths
Campus Landscape Framework Plan, and
function as primary open spaces with cultural Significant Open Spaces
and historic value.
Burke-Gilman Trail

Areas to be Preserved

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 41


PRIMARY OPEN SPACES
In many cases, the key campus axes also
function as primary open spaces, including
Memorial Way, Rainier Vista, the Liberal Arts
Quad, and Campus Parkway along Olympic

AD
U
Vista. A number of additional primary open PARRINGTON

Q
TS
spaces further reinforce the key axes including LAWN

AR
AL
Drumheller Fountain, Sylvan Theater, the

ER
Medicinal Herb Garden, and Parrington Lawn.

B
LI
Denny Field, Denny Yard, Grieg Garden, HUB GRIEG GARDEN
UNION BAY
Lawn, and Portage Bay Vista are also key open
NATURAL AREA
spaces.

RA
In a recent survey conducted as part of the

INI
Campus Landscape Framework, students,

ER
faculty and staff were asked to identify their

VI S
TA
favorite open spaces by placing dots / icons
on a map. Not surprisingly, most responses PARRINGTON
aligned with the primary open spaces, further LAWN
reinforcing their value as campus landscapes.
The waterfront and Union Bay Natural Area
were also identified as favorite open spaces.

Figure 20. Favorite Open Spaces (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework )

42 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Primary

University Way NE
Open Spaces

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE
Figure 21.

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

MEMORIAL WAY
NE 43rd St

D IEL
EN D
F
N
Y
NE 42nd St
PARRINGTON D NE 41st St
R
LAWN YA
Y
N
N TS
DE AR

Rd
L UNION BAY
R A AD

Walla
NE 41st St BE QU NATURAL AREA
LI

Walla
NE CAMPUS PARKWAY HUB
RED LAWN
SQUARE
GRIEG
GARDEN

E
lvd N
lake B
ER
ELL
MH N
e

DRU UNTAI

M o nt
dg

FO
B ri
ty
rsi

Bo MED SY Historic Core


RA

I CI LV
ive

C at AN
PO ITY HE NAL
INI

S
RT OF tree NE GA R R B TH
Un

Red Square
A

EA
ER

AG SE t Pa DEN
ST

E B AT TE
c R
VI

ifi
V

AY TLE cS
IS T
Y

PA Primary Open Space


BA

RK t
A
E
AG

Burke-Gilman Trail
RT
PO

Forested Edge

Active Open Space

Waterfront

Union Bay Natural Area

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 43


Figure 22. Cherry blossoms in the Liberal Arts Quad Figure 23. Sylvan Theater Figure 24. Cedars near Winkenwerder Annex

OPEN SPACE TYPOLOGIES


A mosaic of open spaces emerges within the overarching open
space structure established by the four key campus axes.
The 2015 Campus Landscape Framework comprehensively
catalogues the open spaces on campus, ranging from campus
greens, to woodland groves, to gardens, wetlands, and
meadows. The varied landscape character creates moments
of respite, surprise, activity, and education, and creates a
signature landscape fabric that is unique to the campus.

Open space typologies vary according to the campus sectors.

•• East Campus is characterized by wetlands, meadows, and


recreation field open spaces.

•• West Campus is characterized by courtyards, passage,


and urban frontage open spaces.

•• Central Campus is characterized by campus green and


woodland grove open spaces. Figure 25. Meadow near the Husky Union Building

•• South Campus is characterized by constructed waterfront


open spaces.
44 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan
Existing Open Space
Typologies
Campus Green Garden
Figure 26. (Source: 2015 Campus
Informal Green Service and Parking Landscape Framework)
Recreational Field Lake Edge Wetland

Courtyard / Terrace Meadow

Plaza Constructed Waterfront

Woodland Grove MIO Boundary


NE 45th St
Interstitial / Buffer
Space

Memorial Way
Threshold

15th Ave NE
Passage

Urban Frontage

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
E
lvd N
lake B
e
dg

M o nt
B ri
ty
rsi

Bo
ay
ive

at
St sW
Un

r NE en
ee Pa ev
t c St
ifi
cS
t

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 45


Figure 27. Entrance at NE 45th Street Figure 28. Retaining wall edge condition along 15th Avenue NE

EDGE CONDITIONS
In many ways, the campus environment •• Continuous, blank building facades along
is shaped by a number of linear elements. NE Pacific Street near South Campus
Central Campus is situated within Stevens and fences near the shoreline obstruct
Way, while the Burke-Gilman Trail provides an movement and hinder access to the
important connection through all four campus waterfront.
sectors. The campus’ continuous waterfront
edge is perhaps one of the most defining and •• The retaining wall along 15th Avenue NE
unique campus features. Within this setting, further deters access and creates an
the UW hopes to create more welcoming and unwelcoming edge to campus.
permeable edges to campus.
•• Major roads including 15th Avenue,
A number of conditions contribute to harsh 45th Street, Pacific Street and Montlake
edge conditions that discourage movement, Boulevard are also important campus
including: edges.

•• Steep slopes near the Kincaid Ravine and


along the eastern edge of campus.

46 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Edge

University Way NE
Conditions

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
Figure 29.

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St
KINCAID
RAVINE
NE 43rd St

St
ev
NE 42nd St

en
NE 41st St

sW
ay

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
B ur Pedestrian Overpass

E
ke-

lvd N
G ilm a
n Tr
ail Major Road

lake B
Viaduct
e

M o nt
dg
B ri

Stevens Way
ty
rsi

Bo Burke-Gilman Trail
ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee Pa Retaining Wall
t c ifi
cS Building Edge
t
Steep Slope

Waterfront

Surface Parking Lots

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 47


EXISTING SHORELINE ACCESS
The following table and graphic highlight foot shoreline setback line and street right- • Presence of a public dock.
existing public shoreline access. For the of-way (NE Pacific Street for West Campus
University’s Shoreline Public Access Plan, and South Campus, and Montlake • Presence of a view corridor. The view
please refer to pages 108 to 111. The Shoreline Boulevard for East Campus). corridors align with the view corridors
Access Plan has been organized into seven identified within the Development
waterfront segments and these are found • The acreage of programmed open spaces, Standards, and are visible from public
on the University waterfront. The following which are generally defined as significant rights-of-way.
categories of shoreline access are assessed for and identifiable open spaces, which
each segment: provide access to the waterfront. • Acreage of natural habitat areas, or
wetlands.
• Linear feet of trails included within the • Unprogrammed open space, or ground
200-foot shoreline setback. Trails are cover, which provides access to the
generally required to be 5 feet wide. waterfront.

• The number of through-walkways, or • Presence of a boat launch or marina with


pedestrian connections between the 200- public access.

Table 4. Existing Shoreline Access Conditions

PARK / OPEN SPACE

SHORELINE SHORELINE Programmed BOAT NATUR AL


CAMPUS SHORELINE Trails Unprogrammed PUBLIC VIEW HABITAT AREAS
MANAGEMENT LINEAR L AUNCH/
SECTOR SEGMENT Through Open Space DOCK CORRIDORS
ZONES FEET (linear Open Space MARINA (approx. acreage)
Walkways (approx.
feet) (approx. acreage)
acreage)

WEST W1 700’ 0’ 5 1.3 0 2 2 1 0

URBAN
SOUTH S1 - - - - - - - - -
COMMERCIAL

SOUTH S2 1,590’ 1,600’ 0 - 1.9 0 1 0 0

SOUTH S3 950’ 1,930’ 1 1.9 3.6 0 0 0 0

CONSERVANCY
EAST E1 1,020’ 2,320’ 1 - 4.6 0 0 0 0
MANAGEMENT

EAST E2 3,990’ 270’ 7 12.1 20.8 1 4 2 0

CONSERVANCY
EAST E3 4,200’ 5,400’ 0 - 0 0 0 0 74 Acres
PRESERVATION

12,450’ 11,520’ 14 15.3 ACRES 30.9 3 7 3 74 ACRES

48 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Shoreline Public Access Conditions
Figure 30. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Public Dock Urban Commercial

Marina and/or Boat Launch Conservancy Management

Conservancy Preservation
Through Walkways

View Corridors

Programmed Open Space

Unprogrammed Open Space

Natural Habitat Area

200’ Shoreline District Overlay


Portage
Bay Vista
Union Bay
Natural Area

EAST CAMPUS

WEST CAMPUS
il
n Tra
e- G ilma
Burk

SOUTH CAMPUS
PORTAGE BAY

Montlake
LAKE Bridge
UNION

Glade

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 49


CIRCULATION AND
PARKING FRAMEWORK
MOVEMENT TO AND FROM

MEMORIAL WAY
CAMPUS NE 43RD
The University of Washington has an
extremely desirable mode split—a term used LE
IL
to describe the various ways students, faculty
NE 42ND RE
O
D
and staff travel to and from campus. Its N
NE 41ST PE
single occupancy vehicle (drive-alone) rate
is low at 20 percent of campus commutes, CAMPUS PARKWAY
while walking, biking and transit collectively
account for 72 percent of campus commutes.
The introduction of light rail is anticipated
to further modify the mode split. The mode
split is discussed in greater detail in the

RA
Transportation Management Plan Chapter

INI
and the Transportation Discipline Report in the

ER
CMP EIS.

VI S
TA
The mode split aligns with the findings from
the campus wide MyPlaces survey as part of
the Campus Landscape Framework, in which UW
individuals were asked to identify key campus STATION
gateways, or locations at which individuals
enter the campus. Details of the mode split
analysis methods and history are provided
in the Transportation Discipline Report of
the CMP EIS. In the mode split analysis, the
intersection of 15th Avenue NE and Campus Figure 31. Campus Gateways (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)
Parkway emerged as the primary gateway to
campus, which aligns with Campus Parkway’s

50 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


2015 Mode Split (Morning Arrivals to Campus)
Figure 32.
Source: 2015 U-Pass annual survey results

CAR POOL/ OTHER


VAN POOL 1%
6%
BICYCLE
9%
identity as one of two significant transit hubs
near campus (the second hub is located at the
Montlake Triangle). Additional gateways are
also located along 15th Avenue NE and at the
intersection of 45th Street and Memorial Way,
which further reinforces the need to better
integrate the entrances to campus with the
surrounding urban context. Fewer gateways DRIVE ALONE TRANSIT
were identified along the edges of East
Campus, which signals the need to improve 20% 41%
connections between the Central and East
Campus sectors generally.

The campus wide mode split for faculty,


staff and students is taken from a U-Pass
survey of travel modes to the campus in
the morning. The 2015 survey’s results are
consistent with survey results from the last
decade, and show the drive alone to campus
rate is approximately 20%; however, the 2016
survey’s results, which represent the conditions
after the opening of the Husky Stadium light
rail station, indicate a drive alone rate of only
18%. The Transportation Discipline Report
describes the analysis and is based on the
more conservative 20% drive alone mode split
from 2015.
WALKING
22%

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 51


PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
As with previous campus master plans,
preserving and improving the pedestrian
nature of the campus continues to be a
central goal of the CMP. The many and varied
pedestrian paths within the campus provide a

MEMORIAL WAY
variety of experiences including the functional,
day-to-day movements of large student

AD
populations between classes as well as more

U
Q
passive or leisure-related uses.

TS
AR
AL
Pedestrian circulation routes on campus have

ER
been identified and categorized as major,

B
LI
minor, and connector routes. Major pedestrian CAMPUS PARKWAY RED SQUARE
routes reflect the most heavily trafficked
pedestrian corridors such as Rainier Vista,
Memorial Way, Campus Parkway and through

RA
the Liberal Arts Quad. Minor routes represent

INI
a second tier of pedestrian movement, such

ER
as the connection through Parrington Lawn,

VI S
Denny Yard, and Denny Field. Connector

TA
routes complete the pedestrian network on
campus.

Campus circulation is enhanced by the existing


pedestrian bridges, which minimize pedestrian
and vehicular conflicts and any negative
impact on the flow of vehicular traffic through
and around campus. An analysis of pedestrian
operations and capacity is provided in the
Transportation Discipline Report.
Figure 33. Walking Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

52 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Pedestrian

University Way NE
Circulation

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
Figure 34.

12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

St
ev
NE 42nd St

en
NE 41st St

sW
ay
TS
AR
L D

Rd
E R A UA

Walla
NE 41st St B Q
LI

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

RED SQUARE
G ra
nt L
B ur an e
ke-

E
G

lvd N
ilm
an
Tra
il

lake B
e

M o nt
dg
B ri
ty
rsi
ive

Bo
at NE
Un

St
RA

re Pa
et c
INI

ifi
cS Major Route
ER

t
VI S

Minor Route
TA

Connector Route

Greenway

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 53


Figure 35. Pedestrian bridge connections between East Campus and Central Campus. Figure 36. Pedestrian bridge connecting Schmitz Hall with George Washington Plaza.

Pedestrian Bridges
The University maintains five pedestrian and faculty make use of the Wahkiakum Lane Burke-Gilman Trail to the Alaska Airlines
skybridge rights-of-way that connect all of extension and the Whatcom Lane extension Arena at Hec Edmundson Pavilion and the
the campus sectors to Central Campus. All to access athletic and recreation spaces other connects the Sound Transit station
of the bridges are accessed by visitors, the and amenities, the E-1 and E-18 parking lots, to the Burke-Gilman trail, the University of
community, students, staff, and faculty on a the Union Bay Natural Area, and residential Washington, and the community at-large.
regular basis. amenities in East Campus.
Please refer to the Transportation Discipline
The pedestrian bridge at the intersection There are also two pedestrian overpasses that Report for information on pedestrian use of
of Campus Parkway and 15th Avenue lead from Central Campus to South Campus the bridges.
NE connects Schmitz Hall with George over NE Pacific Street, the T-wing/Garfield
Washington Plaza and is a major entry into the Pedestrian Bridge and the Kincaid/Hitchcock
campus. Pedestrian Bridge. These bridges also enhance
connections to the Burke-Gilman Trail and to
Two pedestrian bridges form defined the South Waterfront.
connections to East Campus from Central
Campus over Montlake Boulevard and are used Two additional pedestrian bridges are located
by a diverse set of individuals. Visitors, the in the area of the Sound Transit Station. One
greater campus community, students, staff, is a City of Seattle bridge and connects the

54 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing University and

University Way NE
Non-University Pedestrian

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
Overpasses

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
Figure 37.
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

E
lvd N
lake B
e

M o nt
dg
B ri
ty
rsi

Bo
ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi
cS
t
University-Permitted
Pedestrian Overpass

Non-University Pedestrian
Bridge

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 55


Figure 38. Fully accessible route through Parrington Lawn Figure 39. ADA ramp to the Husky Union Building (HUB)

UNIVERSAL ACCESS
The UW is committed to providing equal •• As described in the Development
access to all individuals, and addresses Standards, ADA parking is not located
American Disability Association (ADA) building by building, but is assigned at the
accessibility standards through a campus-wide gatehouse or through U-PASS to be as
approach. This means that the UW removes close to the actual location as possible.
barriers through both physical improvements
as well as programmatic improvements The accompanying map illustrates areas
such as Dial-a-Ride shuttle service. Existing that have been identified with accessibility
accessibility challenges include: barriers by the Campus Landscape Framework.
The UW has begun a multi-year process of
•• Physical barriers on campus include paths developing an ADA self-assessment and
that don’t meet ADA requirements and/or transition plan which shall identify accessibility
paths without ADA accessible alternatives barriers in detail, and identify methods and a
to staircases. schedule for barrier removal. Discussions with
users in the disability community have also
•• Routes that provide access to Red Square,
identified consistency of surfaces, construction
as well as routes that provide access
related reroutes, and wayfinding as mobility
between Central Campus from West,
challenges.
South and East Campus, currently present
accessibility barriers.

56 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Accessibility

University Way NE
Network

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE
Figure 40.

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy
RED SQUARE

E
lvd N
lake B
e

M o nt
dg
B ri
ty
rsi

Bo
ive

at
St NE Fully Accessible - Meets
Un

r ee Pa
t c ADA Code
ifi
cS
t Partially Accessible - Part
of paths may not meet the
grade requirement

Not Accessible by ADA


Standards

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 57


BICYCLE CIRCULATION
NETWORK
Bicycle travel has been an important mode
of travel for the UW for many decades, even
preceding the more recent emphasis on
bicycle travel. The UW has encouraged bicycle
travel through a variety of methods including
through the provision of short-term and long-
term secured bicycle parking. The following
are key considerations with regard to the bike
circulation network:

•• The Burke-Gilman Trail, which is owned by


the UW within the MIO, is a key mobility
asset. ST
EV
EN
S
•• Recent bicycle investments by the City of W
AY
Seattle are primarily concentrated in City-
owned right-of-ways within West Campus
and include protected bike lanes.

•• Beyond the Burke-Gilman Trail, which


the UW is improving, on-campus bicycle
facilities are limited to shared-use facilities.
Shared lane markings, commonly known BU
RK
as “sharrows,” are provided on Stevens E-
G
Way. ILM
AN
TR
•• Reinforcing the UW’s desire for a A IL
pedestrian oriented campus, bicyclists also
use pedestrian pathways with a “dismount
zone” enforced in the core of campus
during peak periods.

•• Bikeshare facilities on campus as part of


the City-sponsored pronto system have
been discontinued. As it has in the past,
the UW would participate in future bike
share systems including placing stations on Figure 41. Routes Commonly Used by Bikes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape
campus. Framework)

•• The UW provides bike parking with new


developments to meet campus demands.

58 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


University Way NE
Existing Bike

Roosevelt Rd NE
Network

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
Figure 42.
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

St
ev
NE 42nd St

en
NE 41st St

sW
ay

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

NE Campus Pkwy

Walla
E
lvd N
Bu
rk
e- Paved Shared Trail
Gi

lake B
lm
an
e

Tr Arboretum Bypass Route


dg

a il

M o nt
B ri

Open Space Connector (key


ty

connection used by pedestrians


rsi

Bo
ive

at and cyclists)
Un

St NE
r ee Pa Protected Bike Lane
t c ifi
cS
t Unprotected Bike Lane

Shared Marked Lane

Bike Walk Zone (Dismount Zone)


University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 59


Figure 43. University of Washington Light Rail Station Figure 44. King County Metro Transit

TRANSIT AND SHUTTLE


NETWORK
As the University’s population has grown, •• The UW operates a multi-route shuttle
transit has played an increasingly large role network between the UW Medical Center,
in the campus’ transportation system with the UW Tower, the UWMC Roosevelt
roughly 40 percent of students, faculty and Clinics, South Lake Union, and Harborview
staff traveling to and from campus on transit. Medical Center for faculty, staff and
The following are key features of the vehicular students.
circulation network:
•• The University of Washington Sound Transit
•• King County Metro, Community Transit, Station at Husky Stadium provides regional
and Sound Transit operate extensive bus light rail service to the southeast portion
service to the UW. of campus. The University District Sound
Transit Station, located at 43rd Street
•• Metro provides a majority of the transit and Brooklyn Avenue, shall open in 2021
service to the campus with frequent, and further enhance light rail service to
all-day service to the campus from campus.
destinations throughout the City of Seattle
and county. This service travels along the
edge of Central Campus as well as east-
west through campus on Stevens Way.

60 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Transit and

University Way NE
Shuttle Network

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
Figure 45.

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

St
ev
en
s
W
NE 42nd St

ay
NE 41st St

Rd
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

Walla
E
lvd N
Light Rail (2016)

lake B
Light Rail (2021)
e

M o nt
dg
B ri

Bus Layover
ty
rsi

Bo The UW Shuttle Route


ive

at
St
Un

r ee The UW Shuttle Stop


t NE
Pa
c ifi Bus Route
cS
t
Bus Stop

10 Min Light Rail Walkshed

5 Min Light Rail Walkshed


University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 61


VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
NETWORK
Vehicular circulation has remained largely
unchanged over the last decade. This stable
vehicle gravitation pattern is consistent with
City and regional transportation policies
as well as the UW goals of developing the
campus as a pedestrian-oriented environment.
The following are key features of the vehicular
circulation network:

•• Regional access to campus is provided by


I-5 and SR-520.

•• Stevens Way, Memorial Way, Pend Oreille


Road, and Grant Lane provide local access
to Central Campus and have a large
number of pedestrian crossings.

•• Walla Walla Road and NE Columbia Road


serve similar local access functions for
East and South Campus and have a larger
presence of adjacent parking lots and back
of house type uses.

•• West Campus, unlike the rest of the


campus, is characterized by an urban Figure 46. Vehicular Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)
street grid; vehicular access is limited along
some corridors to reduce cut-through
traffic.

62 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Vehicular

University Way NE
Network

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE
Figure 47.

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

Rd
ill e
O re
NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

d
Pen

Rd
lvd N

Walla
NE 41st St

lake B
NE Campus Pkwy

Walla
M o nt
G ra n
t Lan
e
e
dg
B ri

Interstate
ty

Bo
at
rsi

St
ive

r ee Principal Arterial
Un

t NE
Pa
c Minor Arterial
ifi
cS
t Collector Arterial

Access Street

University Road

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 63


Figure 48. Service areas combined with parking Figure 49. Vegetated screens create a buffer between pedestrian routes and HUB
service access

SERVICE CIRCULATION AND


LOADING ZONES
Proximate vehicular access to buildings the buildings. Many locations conflict with
throughout campus is necessary for servicing pedestrian routes and impact the desired look
and routine operations, including mail delivery, and feel of the campus.
garbage pickup, building maintenance, food
delivery and other activities that require The accompanying map identifies existing
movement of items to and from buildings service routes, along with the number of
using vehicles. These activities are supported general and specific loading zones. Specific
by a number of loading zones and loading loading zones are reserved for specified uses
docks throughout campus, often accessible (e.g. Housing and Food Services, Facilities
via shared spaces that are also used by Services), while others are general.
pedestrians and bicyclists. Load zones
have varying levels of utilization, but are
nevertheless essential to the functionality of

64 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Service

University Way NE
Routes & Loading

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE
Figure 50.

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
lvd N

Walla
NE 41st St

lake B

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

M o nt
5+ General Loading Zone Stalls

2+ General Loading Zone Stalls

General Loading Zone Stall

5+ Special Use Loading Zone Stalls

2+ Special Use Loading Zone Stalls


e
dg
B ri

Special Use Loading Zone Stall


ty
rsi

Bo The UW Service Route


ive

at
St
Un

r ee
t Service Access Road
NE WSDOT Owned Road
Pa
c ifi
cS Seattle Minor Freight Route
t
Seattle Major Freight Route

Seattle Limited Access

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 65


Figure 51. The UW-owned street at NE Stevens Way in Central Campus Figure 52. City-owned street at NE 40th Street

STREET OWNERSHIP
The UW owns most of the property within the
MIO, including a number of streets.

•• In Central and East Campus all internal •• In West Campus, most streets are owned
streets are owned by the UW, with City of by the City, with several of the UW-owned
Seattle or WSDOT owning streets such as streets in the vicinity of the W10 parking
Montlake Blvd and Mary Gates Memorial lot.
Drive passing through the MIO.
•• The Burke-Gilman Trail is also owned by the
•• In South Campus, the UW owns NE UW within the MIO.
Columbia Road, which connects to City-
owned Boat Street at the South Campus
gatehouse.

66 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Street

University Way NE
Ownerships

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE
Figure 53.

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way

Ma
ry
NE 43rd St

Ga
te s
Me
mo
ri a
NE 42nd St

lD
NE 41st St

ri v
e
Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

E
lvd N
lake B
e

M o nt
dg
B ri
ty

University Owned Road


rsi

Bo
ive

at
St NE University Owned Service Road
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi University Owned Segment of
cS
t Burke-Gilman Trail

WSDOT Owned Road

City of Seattle-owned Right-


of-Way
University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 67


PARKING LOT TYPOLOGIES
Parking on campus is provided through The following table identifies all parking The following types of spaces are excluded
surface, structured, and underground parking spaces that are governed by the parking from the parking space cap and the parking
lots of varying sizes. As the campus has grown, spaces cap. Figures account for regular and count in the table: bicycle, loading spaces,
surface parking lots have increasingly been small cars, disability, wheelchair, carpool, EV the UW vehicle, physical plant vehicle, shuttle,
replaced by buildings, sometimes without charge, Zipcar, miscellaneous reserved, pay UCAR, miscellaneous restricted, and parking
replacing lost parking capacity on that site. In by space, pay n display, and metered spaces. associated with residence halls.
1991, the University agreed to a parking space
cap of 12,300 in the MIO and that same cap is
in place today, 25 years later.
Table 5. Existing Parking Lots within Parking Spaces Cap, 2016
•• Parking lots on Central Campus primarily
consist of larger structured lots or small, PARKING LOT
# OF
PARKING LOT
# OF
PARKING LOT
# OF
SPACES SPACES SPACES
building-adjacent surface lots, with strong
N01 213 C17 28 E98 (IMA) 18
parking demand for these lots.
N02 19 C19 28 W10 90

•• East Campus is characterized by large N03 9 C20 (TRIANGLE UPPER) 218 W11 15
N05 170 C21 (TRIANGLE LOWER) 285 W12 90
surface lots such as E1 and E18 which
N12 47 C23 1 W13 6
primarily meet the parking needs of N16 118 S1 805 PORTAGE BAY GAR AGE 895
Central and South Campus. Due to N18 252 S5 7 W24 28
the longer distance of these lots from N20 151 S6 11 W27 (UTC) 30
key destinations, parking demand is N21 131 S7 6 W28(GR AVEL) 41
substantially lower than other areas of N22 33 S8 24 W35 78
campus, except on game days. N24 56 S9 4 W40 TOTAL 34
N25 36 S12 20 W41 37
•• Parking in South Campus is primarily N26 5 E1 1,312 W42 0

provided through structured and N28 201 E2 80 W43 (BEN HALL UPPER) 22

underground parking lots, reflecting C01 157 E3 23 W44 (BEN HALL LOWER) 39
C02 93 E4 128
the scarcity of land in this area. Parking PARRINGTON 2
C03 176 E6 14 FRONTAGE ROAD (S99) 0
utilization is highest in South Campus with
C04 145 E8 132 SPOKANE LN. (SAVERY) 1
excess parking demand shifting to lots like C05 181 E8R 6 SURGERY PAVILION 281
E12 and the Portage Bay Garage adjacent C06 201 E9 62 FISHERIES DOCK 3
to South Campus. C07 11 E12 822 STADIUM GAR AGE 199
C08 13 E14 (GDR) 54 CHELAN LN. (R AITT) 1
•• Parking in West Campus is provided via C09 6 E16 107 SKAGIT LN. (MUSIC) 0
a mixture of lots including a number of C10 51 E17 33
MARINA 1 (1409 NE
52
residence hall lots. C12 56 E18 1,584 BOAT ST)
C14 16 E19 259 MARINA 2 (3537 12TH
67
•• Some of the UW’s key parking resources C15 23 E97 (GR AVES) 15 AVE NE)

are aging, resulting in ongoing and TOTAL - 10,667 PARKING CAP - 12,300 UNDER CAP - 1,633
increasing maintenance costs.

68 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Parking Lot

University Way NE
Typologies

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
H14

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE
Figure 54.

20th Ave NE
I-5

NE 45th St N26
NE 45th St

N1 E2

Memorial Way
N5 H12
NE 43rd St
N25
E3 H12
N9,10,11
N2 N3 N12 E4
NE 42nd St N6
E29 NE 41st St
.
E1 E14
LN N13,14,15 E16
AN E16
W20,21,22,23 EL E16
CH

Rd
.
LN

Walla
NE 41st St
IT N16,18,20,21
AG
W41 SK

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy N22 N24 E18
C1-6
W8
W43,44 C19 N24
W40 W42
W10 C9

E
lvd N
W40 W39 W11 W13 C8
W12 C23
C17

lake B
W32,33
W29
E6
e

E8R

M o nt
dg

C15 E98 E8
B ri

W36 W35 C7
PBG
ty

C14 E97 Surface Parking Lot


rsi

Bo W27 C7
ive

at Structured Parking
St NE C12
Un

r ee W28 E9
t Pa
W24 c ifi E9 Underground Parking
cS C12
t C10
E17 PUDA Parking Spaces (Spaces Do Not
C10 C10 C12 Contribute to the Parking Cap)
S5
Student Residential Spaces (Spaces Do
S6 S12 Not Contribute to the Parking Cap)
S99 C20,21 E19
S7 STADIUM
S1 GARAGE
University Building
E19 E19
E19 Non-University Building
S8
S8
S9
SURGERY
E12 MIO Boundary
PAVILION E12

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 69


BUILT ENVIRONMENT
FRAMEWORK
RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT SITES FROM THE
SITES 2003 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
A comprehensive assessment of the built AND RECENT PLANNING
environment informed the identification of The University has successfully acted upon •• Collectively, the development sites
potential development sites. Building age, a number of development sites from the proposed within the sector studies, along
building condition, deferred maintenance, 2003 Campus Master Plan. As the University with the remaining 2003 development
density and building heights, along with approaches its allowable growth limit, a sites, served as a starting point for
existing maximum building heights were number of development sites remain and have discussions related to future development
assessed. This information, coupled with been revisited as part of the current master sites. In some cases, the development sites
feedback from stakeholder interviews, and an planning effort. In recent years, the University in the CMP vary from those in the previous
understanding of development sites identified has also prepared several sector studies studies.
in the 2003 Campus Master Plan and from focused on West Campus, South Campus, and
recent planning, was used to generate the East Campus. •• For 2018 CMP development sites see pages
development sites identified in the CMP. These 124 to 125.
sites were subsequently reviewed and updated •• In many cases, development sites
over several work sessions, and resulted in the proposed within those studies align with
final set of development sites documented in the remaining development sites from the
the CMP. 2003 Campus Master Plan.

•• The sector studies have also proposed


additional development sites beyond those
remaining from the 2003 Campus Master
Plan.

70 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Development Sites from

University Way NE
2003 Campus Master Plan

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
Figure 55.
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

E
lvd N
lake B
e

M o nt
dg
B ri
ty
rsi

Bo
ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi
cS Remaining 2003 Campus
t
Master Plan Development
Sites

Development Sites from


Recent Planning

University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 71


Figure 56. Bird’s Eye Views of Campus looking west (above)
Figure 57. (right) looking north

UNDERUTILIZED SITE CAPACITY


Building heights vary throughout campus, and
align with the building height limits identified
in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. The 2003
CMP identified eight building height zones
on campus, ranging from 37 feet along the
waterfront to 240 feet in South Campus. The
City’s Shoreline Master Program generally
limits building height to 30 feet for all
development within 200 feet of the shoreline
or associated wetlands. In many instances,
especially for buildings constructed in prior
decades, building heights are significantly
lower than what is allowed, highlighting the
potential for additional capacity on those
sites.

Maximum heights of 2003 CMP zones are


identified on the following page.
Figure 58. Bird’s Eye View of Campus looking west

72 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


2003 Campus Master

University Way NE
Plan Maximum

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
50’
Building Heights

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
Figure 59.
I-5

50’
NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

80’
160’
NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
65’ 37’

Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy
105’ 105’

E
lvd N
65’

lake B
65’
e

M o nt
dg
B ri

200’ Shoreline District Overlay 30 ft


50’ 160’
ty
rsi

Bo MIO Boundary
ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee MIO 37
t Pa
c ifi
cS
105’
t MIO 50
37’ 107’
65’ MIO 65

105’ MIO 80

160’ MIO 105

65’ 240’ MIO 107

MIO 160

MIO 240

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 73


Figure 60. Ocean Teaching Building in South Campus, 35’ Figure 61. Maple, Lander, and Alder Halls, 75’

70’
80’
105’

75
65’
80’

65’ 70’
50’
65’

e et
Str
i fic
Pac
Figure 62. Husky Stadium in East Campus, 160’ Figure 63. William H. Gates Hall in Central Campus, 100’

dge
y B ri
e r sit
Uni v
74 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan
50’
Existing Building Heights
35’ Figure 64.

10’
10’
40’ 10’

75’
65’ 70’ 73’ 120’
15’
75’
30’ 90’ 45’ 120’
40’
35’ 50 60’
60’ 60’
100’ 80’
100’ 60’ 60’
70’ 45’ 30’
30’
60’
15’
62’ 35’
40’ 60’ 40’
105’ 40’
30’ 75’ 50’ 45’ 80’
105’ 80’ 60’ 35’ 25’ 30’
30’
60’ 70’ 105’
45’ 100 65’ 90’
80’ 80’ 80’ 60’
85’ 160’
75’ 50’ 55’ 20’
70’
55’ 105’ 65’ 45
75’ 100’
25’ 25’
30’ 50’
25’ 140’
20’ 30’ 65’ 60’ 30’
25 15’ 50’ 90’ 100’ 24’
40’
35’
50’ 50’ 50’ 15’
50’ 50’
80’ 200’
25’
65’ 25’ 60’ 75’ 50
70’
50’ 60’
90’

25’ 65’
35’ 35’ 65’ 15’
25’ 25’
15’

Existing Building

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 75


Building Age Deferred Maintenance
The University of Washington has made The University maintains information on
significant investment in its building stock, maintenance needs, and has mapped the
evidenced by the number of new buildings deferred maintenance burden on a dollars per
distributed throughout all campus sectors, square foot basis. Analyzing buildings from
notably West Campus. Older buildings this perspective highlights significant deferred
surround the Health Sciences complex, maintenance throughout the Health Sciences
facilities buildings on Central Campus, and complex, Mechanical Engineering, Wilcox, and
throughout the North Campus housing. the old Burke Museum.

Building Conditions
Building age tends to align with building
condition, and reinforces the need to address
the Health Sciences complex, facilities
buildings on Central Campus, and North
Campus housing. A number of smaller
structures including Thomson Hall, Smith Hall,
and Sieg Hall, also need to be addressed.

76 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 77
INCLUSIVE INNOVATION
FRAMEWORK
HISTORY OF INNOVATION than 80 active start-ups. In 2016, the UW also of engineering and technology-related
had the most actively licensed technologies courses at the University grew alongside the
ACTIVITY AT THE UW amongst all universities. success of the young aerospace company.
The University of Washington has been and Numerous research collaborations, partnership
Throughout it’s over 150-year history, schools opportunities and grants were made possible
continues to be an innovator. Every day, and departments within the University
pioneers on the UW campus are developing by the continued support of The Boeing
have collaborated with other departments, Company. The investment of the company
ground-breaking ways to make people’s organizations, and companies; facilitated
lives better. In fact, people around the world led to larger innovations and opportunities
or incubated many successful startups and in astronautics, aerospace, and government-
depend on the UW to tackle big issues like accelerators; and connected, educated,
technology and disruption, curing cancer, sponsored research.
intelligent, and valuable talent to some of the
disease prevention, climate change, clean most innovative organizations and businesses Microsoft
technologies, wage inequality, and affordable in the region and the world. The diversity
housing. Inclusive Innovation is a holistic of research funding and the UW’s record of Microsoft has contributed to the growth of
interdisciplinary approach to understanding partnering reveal this strength and ability to computer science-related education over
and working with the forces that create both bring people and organizations together for the past several decades. In 2017, Paul Allen
innovation and disruption in a manner that a common purpose. A few examples of such and Microsoft established a $40 million
benefits all. collaborations follow: endowment which shall provide $2 million
per year in seed funding for new initiatives
In 2015, the UW was ranked as the most Boeing in the Paul Allen School of computer science
innovative public university by Thomson and engineering. Microsoft has also provided
Reuters. The UW regularly is the top recipient One of the longest and most collaborative significant early funding of $39M to the Global
of federal research dollars in the nation, partnerships started with a gift from the Innovation Exchange that partners the UW,
among public universities, and second then fledgling Boeing Company. William Tsinghua University, and other corporations
overall. Collectively, the University spurs $12.5 Boeing made a large donation to the UW in and universities.
Billion annually in economic impact for the 1917 to construct a wind tunnel for testing
State of Washington and ranks among the plane models. In return, the University Gates Foundation and Population
top universities for tech startups. In 2014 offered courses within the engineering Health Initiative
alone, the UW helped launch more than 100 department to develop skills that would be
new companies, eighteen of which were a valuable to aeronautics companies, and Launched in 2016 by the UW President Ana
direct result of its research technologies; its The Boeing Company in particular. Through Mari Cauce, Population Health addresses
CoMotion Labs incubators now house more much of the 20th century, the popularity challenges in human health, environmental

78 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Figure 65. Nifty cup is an novel way for infants, that cannot breastfeed, to sip. Image Figure 66. One Busy Away is a real-time application that provides meaningful information
source: Laerdal Global Health. to both the rider and transit provider. Image source: onebusaway.org.

resilience, and social and economic equity profit, government, and business entities
through partnerships with local, national, and contributed to the development and continued
global communities. The executive council research behind transit use in the greater
includes faculty and staff from across the Seattle region.
University of Washington system. The initiative
has significant support from the Gates The West Coast Poverty Center
Foundation in the form of a $280M gift.
The West Coast Poverty Center is an
PATH and Nifty Cup antipoverty collaborative started by the UW
School of Social Work, the Daniel J. Evans
The University worked with the non-profit School of Public Affairs, and the College of
global health organization PATH, and Seattle Arts and Sciences. The Center encourages
Children’s Hospital to design a feeding cup to meaningful exchange between professionals
prevent starvation among premature or high- in the realms of research, policy, and action
risk babies in developing countries. in the west coast region. The Center enables
the next generation of poverty researchers
One Bus Away and practitioners through grant funding,
research opportunities and training. Outside
Created by PhD students, the One Bus Away
of the campus, the West Coast Poverty Center
open source project is a real time application
works to bring poverty-relevant knowledge to
that provides a user-friendly interface built on
policymakers and practitioners and to engage
existing bus route data from Sound Transit. Figure 67. Boeing Wind Tunnel on the University’s campus.
researchers and policy practitioners in dialogue
The application provides bus arrival times and Image source: The Seattle Times.
through outreach, communications, and
produces meaningful data about the attitudes
events.
and behaviors of transit users. Various non-

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 79


Figure 68. StartUp Hall in Condon Hall in the Figure 69. CoMotion and Urban@UW
UW’s West Campus

INNOVATION DISTRICT As a nationally recognized innovation anchor


that propels research and drives startups
MOMENTUM in the Seattle-region, the UW is uniquely
Three years ago, the University appointed positioned to create a cutting edge innovation
a Vice President for Innovation Strategy district. Seattle is the economic heart of its
to facilitate innovation transfer, training, region, with a highly educated workforce,
and strategy and to direct CoMotion, making it easier to attract new partnerships,
a collaborative hub for expanding the expand research efforts and create jobs.
economic and societal impact of the UW’s The UW’s proximity to regional connections
work. CoMotion Labs three incubators at and light rail transit, high quality student
Roosevelt, Fluke Hall, StartUp Hall, Urban@ housing, cafes, retail and jobs all support its
UW, along with the future Earth Lab, identity as a center for innovation.
BOWMAN
exceptional educational experiences in the BUILDING
Foster school of Business’ Buerk Center, and Burke Gilman Trail
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE EAST CAMPUS
Innovation Center
collaborative innovation experiences across
UNIVERSITY AVENUE 27 ACRES
multiple units– also express and strengthen the Cultural Asset
University’s
Thriving, commitment
Diverse Retail to innovation and
Academic Research
entrepreneurship.
Innovation District
Today, the University is at an important
milestone as a research institution. New Residence Hall
BURKE
opportunities have emerged for the UW to Retail Corridor
MUSEUM
take an active role in the development of WATERFRONT ACCESS
an innovation district that will continue its Light Rail Stop
Future legacy as an innovator, spur connections, and 2.25 Miles of Waterfront
Burke-Gilman Trail
FLUKE HALL
Transit facilitate the production of MEANY
ideas in a cross-
HALL 5 Min Walkshed
disciplinary and dynamic manner.
JONES
PLAYHOUSE 10 Min Walkshed
80 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan
HENRY
UP
ART
Innovation Framework
Figure 70. Graphics are for
Illustrative Purposes Only

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan 81


INNOVATION DISTRICT
ELEMENTS District; Washington University – St. Louis, St. CORTEX and Drexel, and health sciences for
Louis University, and University of Missouri St. UCSF Mission Bay. What is different about an
What exactly is an “innovation district”? The Louis and the Cortex Innovation Community, innovation district at the UW is that it can
Brookings Institute defines it as a physical and the University of California San Francisco- include many fields of study, all with critical
place that promotes collaboration. The Mission Bay campus.(See Appendix A for link ties to our institutional mission. Arts and
University sees an innovation district as a to more information about each of these sciences, technology, health sciences, and
place where experts across multiple fields districts.) The study looked at the amount of engineering are all welcome in order to find
including but not limited to, social work, land used, the square footage, programmatic the most creative solutions to local, national
public health, engineering, life sciences, the elements, the mix of tenants, and the and global problems.
humanities, and the performing arts can development process. Many innovation
partner with government, business, non-profit districts provide a diverse mix of programmatic The University plans to focus development
organizations and the Seattle community to elements including prototyping spaces, space on campus to create an inclusive
solve critical challenges. From public safety manufacturing facilities, incubators, social innovation district. The Campus Master Plan
to homelessness to curing diseases – it is spaces, and event spaces that are shared envisions between 500,000 to 1,000,000 net
intended to be a place to find answers to by start-ups, research labs, incubators and new gsf of space to support the development
big questions for the people of Seattle and accelerators within a typically dense, mixed- of an innovation district. These spaces will
around the world, and to create an inclusive use environment. serve both the University community and its
spirit and culture of entrepreneurial thinking partners. The majority of employees working
and innovation mindsets. Inclusive innovation Placemaking and identity are central themes in this space will be UW students, staff and
is a holistic interdisciplinary approach to for each of the districts that were analyzed. faculty with the balance being employees of
understanding and working with the forces In West Philadelphia and Cambridge, flexible partner organizations. For more information
that create both innovation and disruption in a and inexpensive pop-up parks are designed about partnership space needs, please refer to
manner that benefits all. with social programming in mind. The goal is the space needs section on page 35.
to physically connect people through public
To better understand the program elements spaces, where people can serendipitously
and types of spaces that support innovation and informally bump into one another. Those
districts, the UW prepared case studies of public spaces are typically integrated within
other innovation districts as part of the innovation district clusters or close to mobility
campus master planning process, including options.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Kendall Square; Drexel University, University The study also showed that each innovation
of Pennsylvania, and the Keystone Innovation district is closely tied to a particular industry:
biotech for Kendall Square, technology for

82 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


Innovation Ecosystem Elements
Figure 71. Graphics are for
Illustrative Purposes Only

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan 83


5 VISION,
PRINCIPLES, AND
FRAMEWORKS
84 July 2017 Final Plan
•• LONG-TERM VISION INFORMS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN

•• GUIDING PRINCIPLES

•• PLANNING FRAMEWORKS

•• PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK

•• CIRCULATION & PARKING FRAMEWORK

•• BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK

•• INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK

•• SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK

•• UTILITY FRAMEWORK

July 2017 Final Plan 85


LONG-TERM VISION INFORMS THE
10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN
This Campus Master Plan (CMP) accomplishes two Long-Term Vision - Illustrative Plan
objectives. It establishes a bold, long-term vision, and
guides the development that shall occur over its 10-
year planning horizon, as required by the City-University
Agreement.

The CMP identifies approximately 12.0 million net new gross


square feet of development capacity. It also identifies the
growth allowance that the University is planning to develop
over the 10-year planning horizon. The growth allowance is
6.0 million net new gross square feet of development. The
CMP shall remain in effect until the growth allowance is
used up. The CMP identifies potential development sites that
could:

•• Accommodate the growth allowance and provide


room for continuous growth in student enrollment and
research demands.

•• Guide creation of an active public realm.

•• Complement the existing lexicon of higher education


spaces on campus with new settings for collaboration
and research partnerships. Figure 72. Long-Term Vision, Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

The CMP creates a progressive and sustainable framework Table 6. Development Capacity and Permitted Development by
that shall enable UW’s continued evolution as a 21st Campus Sector
century institution. The CMP balances the preservation
of historic campus assets with increased density; and POTENTIAL NET NEW NET NEW MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
integrates the University’s strategic goals and academic, DEVELOPMENT (GROSS DEVELOPMENT (GROSS DEVELOPMENT LIMIT
SQUARE FEET) SQUARE FEET) (%)
research, and service missions with capital plan objectives
to guide the physical development of the campus. CENTRAL 1,631,941 900,000 15%

WEST 3,762,199 3,000,000 50%


SOUTH 2,208,735 1,350,000 23%
EAST 4,293,885 750,000 12%

TOTAL 11,896,760 6,000,000 100%

86 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


10-Year Conceptual Plan
Figure 73. Graphics are for
Illustrative Purposes Only

NE 45th St

15th Ave NE

NE 41st St

E
lvd N
lake B
e
dg

M o nt
B ri
ty
rsi
ive
Un

NE
Pa
c ifi
cS
t

Potential Building

Existing Building

Significant Open Space

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 87


GUIDING PRINCIPLES
GUIDING PRINCIPLES GUIDING PRINCIPLE #1 new pedagogies, evolving technology, and
increasingly scarce resources in a flexible
The CMP serves as a long-term aspirational FLEXIBLE FRAMEWORK manner. The CMP may reinforce strategic
framework for future development, and is Create a lasting and flexible planning decision-making in a manner that is responsive
founded on five underlying principles: framework to guide development of to its mission, potential growth, and that
1. Flexible Framework University projects during the identification benefits the community. Identifying multiple
of a development site and implementation development sites—more than what is needed
2. Learning Based Academic and Research of development guidelines and standards in for the growth allowance—throughout each of
Partnerships support of the University of Washington’s the four campus sectors provides the University
education, research, and service missions. with flexibility in responding to changing needs.
3. Sustainable Development
In the absence of a definitive future, the CMP
4. Connectivity needs to respond to changing conditions,
5. Stewardship of Historic and Cultural
Resources

Figure 74. Flexible Framework


Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

88 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


GUIDING PRINCIPLE #2 The CMP embraces new modes of teaching and beyond that support the local, regional
and learning to create a flexible and dynamic and state economies. The CMP creates a
LEARNING-BASED ACADEMIC framework that accommodates the need for structure to catalyze academic and research
AND RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS growth in student enrollment and research partnerships within UW and allied external
demands. It complements the existing lexicon entities, stimulate job growth, and economic
Support and catalyze academic and
of higher education spaces with new settings development in the larger University District,
teaching research partnerships with allied
for collaboration and multiple opportunities and transform UW into a global hub for
industries, contribute to a highly livable
for innovative learning that extend beyond cutting edge thinking and entrepreneurship.
innovation district, and stimulate job
the classroom. The University is part of a
growth and economic development.
growing network of industries in Seattle

Figure 75. Partnerships


Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 89


GUIDING PRINCIPLE #3 The University is at the national forefront of Open spaces and parks are amenities that
campus sustainability related to tracking, are integral to creating an active and vibrant
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT education, and campus outreach. The CMP public realm and urban form.
Implement UW’s commitment to supports existing sustainability efforts and
sustainable land use through the extends those efforts to future development.
preservation and utilization of its existing
property and the balance of development,
open space, and public use.

5.0
ACRES

2.5 2.5
ACRES ACRES

OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE


2.5 ACRES 7.5 ACRES

Figure 76. Sustainable Development


Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

90 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


GUIDING PRINCIPLE #4 The CMP embraces UW’s urban identity, new outdoor spaces, integrating the City’s
seamlessly integrating it with its surrounding Green Street initiatives and leveraging the
CONNECTIVITY community. The University plays an important unique natural setting of UW to create a
Extend UW’s commitment to better connect role as a regional connector and destination. continuous and active shoreline. Street level
the University internally and with its broader The CMP prioritizes pedestrian movement interventions strengthen major pathways
context. and establishes strong synergies between UW on campus, while 15th Avenue and Brooklyn
and its neighboring communities by creating Avenue are re-characterized as connectors
an extensive and accessible public realm between the community and University with
with multiple connections to the waterfront, active street level uses.
improving regional access through the two
new light rail stations, introducing significant

Figure 77. Connectivity


Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 91


GUIDING PRINCIPLE #5 UW strives to be a good steward of its historic, high density approach to development that
natural, economic, cultural and built resources. enables the preservation of historic campus
STEWARDSHIP OF HISTORIC, The CMP positions the campus as a living lab assets, the creation of new public spaces and
CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL for research and learning by adopting a holistic an integrated pedestrian and bike network.
systems-thinking approach to sustainability, The University is working with the City and
RESOURCES structured around five themes - ecological State to complete a Historic and Cultural
Continue responsible and proactive systems, mobility, engagement, built Resources Survey that shall be common
stewardship of UW’s campus assets through environment, and economic development. The reference material for historic preservation
preservation of its historic, cultural, and CMP creates a balanced approach to future implementation.
ecological resources and managed strategy growth on campus by adopting a compact,
of property development.
Listed on the Washington Heritage Register
and/or National Register of Historic Places

At least 50 years old


(not registered)

Turning 50 by 2021

Turning 50 by 2031

Figure 78. Historic and Cultural Resources,


Existing Conditions
Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
92 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan
PLANNING
FRAMEWORK
The Planning Framework that follows describes
the various aspects of the Campus Master
Plan from a campus-wide perspective.
Recommendations related to each of the four
campus sectors are described in greater detail
in Chapter 6 – Project Review and Design
Guidance. The Planning Framework includes
the following:

•• Public Realm Framework

•• Shoreline Public Access Plan

•• Circulation and Parking Framework

•• Built Environment Framework

•• Inclusive Innovation Framework

•• Sustainability Framework

•• Utility Framework

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 93


PUBLIC REALM
FRAMEWORK
CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES
The CMP preserves and builds upon the campus’ existing four
radial axes—Rainier Vista, the Liberal Arts Quad, Memorial Way
and Olympic Vista / Campus Parkway—and plans for more
spaces and connections that enhance the organization of the
campus and provide the context for future development. Areas
with increased density are balanced with access to open space,
either distributed among multiple sites, or through the creation
of larger open space amenities. Commitments and timing of
open space improvements can be found on page 240.

•• Brooklyn Avenue NE helps connect the City and University Figure 79. Major Organizational Axes
with the waterfront through the introduction of a bike lane
and activated pedestrian realm.

•• An enhanced open space connector links South Campus to


both Central Campus and the waterfront.

•• Multiple pedestrian connections stitch together the four


campus sectors into a comprehensive and connected
network, and are part of a larger, integrated street grid
that seamlessly connects with the broader community (See
Figure 84).

•• Active uses create a comprehensive and dynamic campus


environment. (See Figure 83 - dashed lines represent active
building edges). Please reference the Project Review and
Design Guidance chapter on page 156.

Figure 80. Illustrative Plan for Future Connected Campus

94 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Figure 81. Existing Primary Open Spaces Figure 82. Identified Areas for Future Open Space Additions

Figure 83. Active Public Realm Figure 84. Integrated with Broader Neighborhood

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 95


OPEN SPACE ORGANIZATION
The CMP identifies a number of publicly
accessible, significant open spaces. The CMP
supplements existing historic and culturally
significant open spaces, primarily located on
Central Campus with a range of new civic-
scaled open spaces in West, South and East
Campus.

New significant open spaces connect the


campus sectors together into a continuous
landscape network, establish a strong
sense of place, and reinforce the proposed
organizational axes. These spaces represent
seven percent growth in primary and significant
open spaces, adding 44 acres of primary open
spaces, creating a total of 156-acres of primary
Figure 85. Existing primary open space, Liberal Arts Quad Figure 86. Existing primary open space, Rainier Vista
open space within the long-term vision for
(Credit: Loyd Heath Photography)
campus.

The primary open spaces additions include:

•• West Campus Green and Plaza

•• South Campus Green

•• Connection between East and Central


Campus

•• Continuous Waterfront Trail

•• North Campus Housing landscape

These spaces form key structuring elements


for campus development. The open spaces
identified on the Unique and Significant
Landscapes Graphic on page 97 should be
preserved and protected.

Existing Primary Open Space Burke-Gilman Trail

Potential Primary Open Space Union Bay Natural Area

Woodland Waterfront Access/View

Open Space Connection Figure 87. Potential Primary Open Spaces. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

96 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Unique and Significant Landscapes
Figure 88. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Significant landscapes identified on the Proposed Pedestrian Paths


accompanying graphic are planned to be
Proposed Significant Open Spaces
preserved as part of the Campus Master Plan.
Burke-Gilman Trail

Waterfront Trail

Areas to be Preserved

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 97


West Campus Green and Plaza
West Campus Green strengthens connections to the waterfront, the
surrounding University District, and adjacent campus sectors, and Bu
rke
serves as the heart of West Campus. The Green is envisioned to: -G
ilm
W25
an
Tra
•• Establish an urban and green public realm character in West i l
Campus, which was missing.

•• Tie into the City of Seattle’s new Portage Bay Park. W27

•• Provide needed outdoor relief from the added density throughout

12th Ave NE
11th Ave NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

The Ave
W30
West Campus.
W29

•• Integrate with and improve outdoor space that provides a sense PLAZA
of place for Fishery Science. 0.4 ACRES BELVEDERE
0.5 ACRES
•• Activate the ground floor through two new pavilions to create
NE Pacific St
a destination open space that is expressive of the University’s
activities and welcomes the larger community.

•• Include a stepped terrace to the north of Pacific Street that ties Fishery Sciences
W36 W31
into both the Burke-Gilman Trail and the mid-block connector
back to Central Campus, affording sweeping views of Portage
Bay.

John. M.
Wallace
W34
WEST CAMPUS
•• Provide an origin for the continuous waterfront trail. GREEN
4.1 ACRES W32
•• Enhance access and the features along the waterfront including
W35
Agua Verde and Sakuma viewpoint.
Fisheries
West Campus Green is similar in scale to Parrington Lawn and Teaching Marine
Research
provides vistas in a similar capacity to the Olympic Sculpture Park Center
Studies

and South Lake Union Park.


W33
C
OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT PO ITY
RT OF
AG S
Over the life of this CMP, the approximately 4-acre area designated 2.5 E B EAT
as the “West Campus Green” shall be reserved for open space, except AC AY P TLE
R E AR
that minor structures supporting the open space function are allowed. S K
Structures and improvements required for utility infrastructure are
also allowed. A design and implementation plan for West Campus
Green and the West Campus section of the Continuous Waterfront
Trail shall be completed by the time 1.5 million square feet of net new
development in the West Campus sector is completed. A concept
plan for all three sections of the Continuous Waterfront Trail—West,
Figure 89. West Campus Green, Plaza, and City of Seattle Potential Building
South, and East—shall also be completed at this time. At the latest,
Portage Bay Park. Existing Building
construction of the West Campus Green and the West Campus
Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only Potential Significant Open Space
98 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan Existing Uses Relocated
Open Space Comparisons

LakeFigure
Union
Lake Park
90. Union
Lake –Park
Union 10.0
Park - –acres
10.0
10.0 acres acres Red Square
Red
Figure 91. Red – 3.2- acres
Square
Square – acres
3.2 3.2 acres Parrington Lawn
Parrington
Figure 92. Parrington – -7.8
Lawn
Lawn acres
– 7.8 acres
7.8 acres
Lake
Lake Union
Union
Lake Union
Park
Park––Park
10.0
10.0 acres
–acres
10.0 acres Red
Red Square
Square
Red Square–– 3.2
3.2 acres
acres
– 3.2 acres Parrington
Parrington
Parrington
Lawn
Lawn –– Lawn
7.8
7.8 acres
acres
– 7.8 acres

Figure 93. Olympic Sculpture Park – 11.0 acres Figure 94. Gas Works Park – 20.0 acres Figure 95. West Campus Green and City of Seattle Portage
Olympic Sculpture
Olympic Park –Park
Sculpture 11.0 acres Gas Works
11.0 –acres Park –Park
Gas Works 20.0 –acres
20.0 acres Proposed Waterfront
Bay ParkProposed
(including Park
Waterfront
Pacific Street) –Park
7.0 acres
– 7.5 acres – 7.0 acres
Olympic
Olympic
Olympic
Sculpture
Sculpture
Sculpture
Park
Park ––Park
11.0 11.0 acres Gas
11.0acres
–acres Gas Works
Works
Gas Works
Park
Park ––Park
20.0
20.0 acres
–acres
20.0 acres Proposed
Proposed Proposed
Waterfront
Waterfront
Waterfront
Park
Park ––Park7.0
7.0 acres
acres
– 7.0 acres

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 99


CITY OF SEATTLE B o at
PORTAGE BAY PARK Stre
e t

100 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


West Campus Green and Plaza
Figure 96. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

PLAZA

Brooklyn Av
enue
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN

SAKUM
A VIEW
POINT

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 101


section of the Continuous Waterfront Trail shall
occur when 3.0 million square feet of net new
development is completed in the West Campus S40 NE
Pa
sector. Figure 89 reflects the 10-year conceptual c ifi
cS
plan and the long term vision for open space in t

West Campus.
K-
W
South Campus Green in
g S41

Development in South Campus currently


presents several physical barriers between the

N
EE
waterfront and Central Campus. As part of

GR
the redevelopment strategy for the sector, the H-

E US
W
in

CR M P
CMP proposes to enhance the connectivity and g

1 A CA
accessibility of the existing pedestrian bridge S49 N S42

H
E S45

UT
between South Campus and Central Campus Co
lu

SO
m
over NE Pacific Street. The pedestrian bridge bi

R
a

PE
Rd
opens out onto the proposed upper South S43

UP
Campus Green framed by new Health Sciences
facilities and the waterfront, and connects to the S50 S46

continuous waterfront trail.


S44
S51
OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT S47

Over the life of this CMP, the approximately


4-acre area designated as the “South Campus
Green” and the “Upper South Campus Green”
shall be reserved for open space. SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN S48
S52
2.9 ACRES
A design and implementation plan for the
Greens, as well as the South Campus section of
the continuous waterfront trail shall occur when
construction on the first adjacent development
site is completed (Sites S50, S51, S52, S41, S42,
S53
S45, or S46).

Construction of the South Campus Green


shall occur when construction of development
sites S50, S51, S52, and S53 are all completed.
Construction of the Upper South Campus Green
S54
shall occur when construction of development
sites S41, S,42, S45, and S46 are all completed.
Figure 97. South Campus Green
Potential Building
Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Existing Building

Potential Significant Open Space


102 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan
East Campus Connection
To enhance connections between Central OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT
and East Campus, the CMP introduces a The land inside the dotted line in Figure 98
connection that could replace the existing preserved for a future open space in Central
pedestrian bridge to the existing E1 parking lot Campus and East Campus, but is not intended
and connects from the HUB across Montlake to be completed within the 10-year conceptual
Boulevard, and beyond to the Union Bay plan.
Natural Area.

C8
E
N

E69
Way

E68
s
even
E St

E
n Rd N

E
lvd N
C9

M aso

lake B

Walla
C10 E67

M o nt

Walla
E A ST C A
M PU S C E66

Rd
O NN
3 ACRES ECTION

NE
E63
Hall Health

E65
Fluke Hall

E64
UW Club
E63
NE W
ahkia
ku m
Rd
HUB

C11
E62

Figure 98. East Campus Connection


Potential Building
Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Existing Building

Long-term Potential Open Space


Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 103
Continuous Waterfront Trail
A potential continuous trail proposed along the
shoreline connects the West Campus Green,
Portage Bay Vista, the South Campus Green,
the Glade, and Union Bay Natural Area and
the East Campus Connection, and emphasizes
the University’s connection to the water. The
trail facilitates unique and dynamic activities
and features for community and University
use. Numerous opportunities exist to invest in
new connections to and along the waterfront,
preserve natural resources, and encourage WEST

A
ST
a diversity of waterfront uses and cultural CAMPUS

VI
attractions. GREEN

Y
BA
E
AG
OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT

RT
PO
The continuous waterfront trail shall align with
future development in West, South and East
Campus sectors, as follows:
SOUTH
•• In addition to the design and
CAMPUS
implementation plans for West and South GREEN
Campus sections of the trail described
earlier, the design and implementation
plan for the East Campus section of the GLADE
continuous waterfront trail shall occur at the
time of completion of development of site
E58.

•• Construction of the East Campus section of Figure 99. Proposed Continuous Trail
the continuous waterfront trail shall align
with completion of construction of the
750,000 square feet of net new development
allowed in East Campus under the CMP.

•• The University has proposed a Shoreline


Public Access Plan as part of the CMP PORTAGE BAY
that supports the continuous waterfront
MONTLAKE CUT
trail. Refer to pages 108 to 111 for more
information about the Shoreline Public
Access Plan.

Figure 100. South Campus Existing Condition

104 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


North Campus Housing Landscape NE 45th Street
Significant open space investments are
conceived as part of the transformation of the
student housing precinct on North Campus.
Hansee Hall
Denny Field serves as the signature open space
KINCAID
for recreation; Lewis Grove provides shaded RAVINE
relief for informal gatherings; and the adjacent
Town Square plaza functions as the crossroads McCarty Hall

of activity for the residential precinct. This


highly trafficked area provides access to
services and amenities, and accommodates M
ad
events. Denny Field and Lewis Grove shall be ro
na
implemented when development site C5 (Oak
Hall) is developed.
ow
ill
DENNY FIELD W

TOWN SQUARE

H
ut
ch
in
) FOREST

so
ak

n
(O AMPHITHEATER
C5

LEWIS GROVE C6

Lewis
C3

C4

Art
C7

Figure 102. North Campus Housing Precinct Potential Building


Figure 101. North Campus Housing Area Existing Condition Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Existing Building

Potential Significant Open Space

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 105


ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE Olympic Vista/Campus Parkway restored, but a comprehensive overhaul of
Improvements these three significant open spaces as one
IMPROVEMENTS continuous landscape is warranted.
Olympic Vista provides some visual connection
The following additional potential landscape between Central and West Campus
improvements are identified in the 2015 The importance of these large open spaces
neighborhoods, but all types of pedestrian in greeting visitors and providing a first
Campus Landscape Framework and inform the connections, including pedestrian, accessible,
long-term vision but may not occur during the impression is significant. Care may be taken
bicycle, and automobile, are difficult to to ensure they represent the values of the
life of this CMP. navigate. University through the quality of the landscape
Red Square Universal Access and accessibility. A concept plan developed in
43rd Street Entrance 2015 envisions these improvements.
Connections
The 43rd Street pedestrian entrance onto
The construction of the multilevel Central campus from 15th NE and the University Pend Oreille Entrance
Parking Garage, with the Red Square Plaza District leads to the key intersection between
above it, was hugely successful in reducing the Pend Oreille has often been referred to as
Memorial Way and Stevens Way. The use of a back door to campus given the utilitarian
need for surface parking in the core campus, this entrance shall be magnified by the light
but created complex accessibility challenges expression of parking lots, minimal sidewalks,
rail transit station in 2021. no signage, a lackluster landscape, and
due to the inflexible grade datum set by
the top of the garage structure. The scale expanse of asphalt. The growth of University
The Liberal Arts Quad Village across the street with high quality
of the square and its centrality to campus
life is sufficient to warrant accessibility and The Liberal Arts Quad is one of the most landscape emphasizes, by contrast, the
environmental improvements in a few key photographed iconic open spaces on campus need to bring this campus entrance up to
locations. and in the city. The spring clouds of cherry a higher standard. A detailed estimate and
blossoms draw many thousands of visitors phasing plan was generated to identify
Stevens Way improvements annually. Pathways throughout the Liberal costs to realign the road and create a better
Arts Quad may be made more accessible and functioning intersection at NE 25th Street,
As the sole remaining loop road through a preservation of the trees a high priority. adding bike lanes and sidewalks along Pend
largely pedestrianized campus, Stevens Way Oreille, removing the visible parking lots,
is an access route, service route, pedestrian and celebrating the sense of arrival with
Denny Yard, Parrington Lawn, and
route, bus loop, and campus drive all rolled landscaping and signage.
Memorial Way
into one. The narrowness of the roadway in
certain areas, combined with steep grades Denny Yard, surrounded by construction and
in parts, can contribute to conflicts between renovation projects for over ten years, has
bicyclists and general purpose traffic. Stevens only seen minimal restoration itself. Parrington
Way shall be considered for potential bike Lawn and Memorial Way have had small areas
improvements.

106 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Northlake Reach

Neighborhood Reach
(partially complete)

Garden Reach

Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements Campus Reach


(complete)
The University completed the first phase of
the “neighborhood reach” section of planned Forest Reach
improvements to the Burke-Gilman Trail in
2016.

The Concept Plan for the Burke-Gilman Trail


Improvements is organized into five distinct
segments. The “campus reach” was completed
in 2016, with the remaining segments to be
completed as funding becomes available.
The “neighborhood reach”, which is partially
complete, is designed to better connect
student housing on both the north and south
sides of the trail, and includes several mixing
zones below the University Bridge, at Adams
Lane, and at Cowlitz Place NE. Figure 103. Concept Plan for the Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements. “Reaches” are areas with distinct characters.

Figure 104. Neighborhood Reach Improvements Plan

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 107


SHORELINE PUBLIC
ACCESS PLAN
Introduction
This section provides the University’s Bay Park. A new trail segment has been and includes the waterfront trail, along with
Shoreline Access Plan. It shall be binding upon identified that would link the trail from the five through-walkways that connect the
University development within the shoreline City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park to South waterfront to the street right-of-way along NE
district pursuant to SMC 23.60A.164.K. It Campus. Six through-walkways are also Pacific Street. The South Campus Green forms
is a combination of both existing and new identified in W1, along with two docks and two a new signature programmed open space and
elements. Please refer to pages 48 to 49 boat launches/marinas. includes a view corridor.
for information on existing shoreline access
conditions. Commercial water-dependent uses, including The final waterfront segment through South
moorage for private boats and boat rentals, Campus, S3, occupies the easternmost
West Campus may be included in the Urban Commercial section of South Campus and falls within the
shoreline in West Campus where their Conservancy Management Zone. This area
West Campus is situated within the Urban requirements do not conflict with the water- includes a continuation of the waterfront trail,
Commercial environment, and includes the dependent uses of the College of Ocean along with two additional through-walkways.
W1 shoreline segment as identified on the and Fishery Sciences or limit public access to Also located in this segment is a second
accompanying graphic. Throughout the the waterfront. Potential uses could include programmed open space, the Hospital Glade.
majority of this segment, the City of Seattle’s a passenger ferry dock. Uses which would The public dock in South Campus would be
Portage Bay Park provides direct access require additional single-purpose public removed.
to the waterfront, but is not University of parking shall be discouraged.
Washington property. The City of Seattle’s
East Campus
Portage Bay Park shall connect into the Some boat moorage facilities in the Urban
University’s new West Campus Green, a Commercial shoreline environment shall be East Campus is situated in both the
programmed open space, expanding the available for public use. Priority shall be given Conservancy Management and Conservancy
public realm and enhancing connections to to transient boat moorage and moorage, Preservation Zones. The E1 segment spans
the water. The view from NE Pacific Street to which would provide the fewest restrictions for from the Montlake Bridge to the area west
the waterfront serves is one of the two view public access. of the Canoe House. Similar to S3, the area
corridors identified. includes a continuation of the waterfront
South Campus trail, along with one through-walkway. The
The W1 shoreline segment also includes the E2 waterfront segment starts at the Canoe
Portage Bay Vista, which serves as the second South Campus includes segments situated House, includes the Waterfront Activities
view corridor as well as a programmed open within both the Urban Commercial and Center, and extends north to the Conibear
space. The University’s marina on the east Conservancy Management environments. Shellhouse. This area includes the continuation
edge of the W1 waterfront segment includes The S1 segment includes land and waterfront of the waterfront trail, three through-
both a dock and a marina. The W1 waterfront access associated with the Jensen Motor Boat walkways, three docks, and one boat launch.
segment shall largely rely upon and integrate Company (non-University property) and is
with the pedestrian pathways / trail network not accounted for within the Shoreline Public The largest segment of East Campus
from the completed City of Seattle Portage Access Plan. The S2 waterfront segment spans waterfront is E3, which is largely defined as
the majority of the South Campus waterfront the Union Bay Natural Area (UBNA), which
falls within the Conservancy Preservation
environment. No modifications shall be made

108 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


to the trail network within the UBNA. restrictions on access may be required during
nesting periods or to restore habitat. Except
Access in the Conservancy Preservation for a few dead-end pathways terminating
shoreline environment and associated at viewpoints, pedestrian access within
wetlands shall be limited to boats and the Conservancy Preservation shoreline
pedestrians utilizing designated foot paths, environment shall not be provided directly on
view points, and boat access points. Access the shoreline, but shall be set back to protect
shall be available to the general public, wetland areas. No access shall be provided to
provided that such access does not degrade the peat islands in Union Bay.
the wildlife habitat. Bicycling, jogging, and
dog walking shall be discouraged. Temporary

Table 7. Shoreline Public Access Plan

PARK / OPEN SPACE

SHORELINE SHORELINE Programmed BOAT NATUR AL


CAMPUS SHORELINE Trails Unprogrammed PUBLIC VIEW HABITAT AREAS
MANAGEMENT LINEAR L AUNCH/
SECTOR SEGMENT Through Open Space DOCK CORRIDORS
ZONES FEET (linear Open Space MARINA (approx. acreage)
Walkways (approx.
feet) (approx. acreage)
acreage)

WEST W1 700’ 640’ 8 1.3 0 2 2 2 0

URBAN
SOUTH S1 - - - - - - - - -
COMMERCIAL

SOUTH S2 1,590’ 1,600’ 5 4.0 2.9 0 0 1 0

SOUTH S3 950’ 1,930’ 2 1.9 3.9 0 0 0 0

CONSERVANCY
EAST E1 1,020’ 2,320’ 1 - 4.5 0 0 0 0
MANAGEMENT

EAST E2 3,990’ 3,500’ 9 12.1 20.8 1 4 2 0

CONSERVANCY
EAST E3 4,200’ 5,400’ 1 - 0 0 0 0 74 Acres
PRESERVATION

12,450’ 15,390’ 26 19.3 ACRES 32.1 3 6 5 74 ACRES

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 109


Shoreline Public Access Plan
Figure 105. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Existing Public Dock Urban Commercial

Existing Marina and/or Boat Launch Conservancy Management

Conservancy Preservation
Existing Through Walkways

Bro
Existing View Corridors

ok
Existing Programmed Open Space

lyn
Av
Unprogrammed Open Space

en
ue
Natural Habitat Area

NE
200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Proposed Through Walkways

Proposed View Corridors WEST CAMPUS


Proposed Programmed Open Space

an Trail
lm
e-Gi
Burk
IN UOUS TRAIL
T
CON RFRONT
E
WAT

110 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


EAST CAMPUS
CONNECTION

SOUTH
WEST CAMPUS
CAMPUS GREEN
GREEN

Union Bay Natural Area

EAST CAMPUS
ta
Bay Vis
e
Portag

SOUTH CAMPUS

Montlake Bridge

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 111


CIRCULATION AND
PARKING FRAMEWORK
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Consistent with the UW’s goal of developing •• A mid-block connector that extends east •• At existing and proposed light rail stations
a pedestrian-oriented campus, the CMP from the West Campus Green along and along campus edges where RapidRide
identifies a number of interventions that shall Skamania Lane and north to connect with is proposed including Montlake Boulevard,
enrich the pedestrian quality of the campus University Way 15th Avenue NE, NE 45th Street, and Pacific
environment and reduce pedestrian-vehicular Street
conflicts. The University shall continue to be •• Between Central Campus and the
a good steward of its pedestrian network waterfront via the South Campus Green •• Between Central Campus and West
through well-designed, strategic investments Campus and the University District
•• North of the Computer Science and
such as improved wayfinding, lighting,
Engineering II Building along Snohomish
maintenance and removal of ADA barriers.
Lane between Stevens Way and the Hec
Pedestrian circulation is envisioned to be Edmundson pedestrian bridge
concentrated and enhanced in the following
•• Between the Golf Driving Range area and
locations:
the IMA in East Campus
•• A mid-block connection south of Gould
•• Between Denny Yard and North Campus
Hall
Housing’s town square
•• Adjacent to and within the West Campus
•• Enhanced connection between Memorial
Green
Way and 15th Avenue NE at 43rd Street
•• Along key north-south alignments in
•• On the Burke-Gilman Trail
West Campus including 11th Avenue and
12th Avenue. These are shared ways that •• Creation of a continuous waterfront trail
prioritize pedestrian and bike movement, from Boat Street to NE Clark Road
and limit vehicular access to emergency
and service vehicles •• On Rainier Vista to provide continuous
universal access

112 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Proposed Pedestrian

University Way NE
Circulation

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE
Figure 106. Graphics are for

20th Ave NE
Illustrative Purposes Only
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NORTH CAMPUS
NE 43rd St HOUSING

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

E
e

lvd N
Lan
rs to n
Th u Existing Primary Route

lake B
Potential Primary Route
e

M o nt
dg

WEST CAMPUS
B ri

GREEN Existing Secondary Route


ty
rsi

Bo Potential Secondary Route


ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee
t Pa Existing Connector Route
c ifi
cS
t Potential Connector Route

Existing Greenway

Potential Greenway

SOUTH CAMPUS Designated Neighborhood


GREEN Green Street
University Building

Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 113


BIKE CIRCULATION
Improvements to bicycle circulation and •• Improvements to the Burke-Gilman Trail,
parking are identified as a key way to especially where these improvements help
encourage and increase bicycling. Improving reduce conflicts between bicyclists and
the quality of bicycle travel by reducing other modes, are important, and shall
conflicts with vehicles on city streets and be implemented as funding becomes
conflicts with pedestrians on campus is a available.
desired outcome. Improvements to bike
circulation include: •• Connections to City-proposed investments
as part of the Bicycle Master Plan
•• Improvements to bicycle parking to (BMP) are noted. The BMP includes an
increase supply of longer-term and higher- implementation plan for near term
security bicycle parking in buildings or investments, which is evaluated in the
other contexts. Ongoing monitoring and Transportation Discipline Report (TDR) of
adjustment of short-term parking supply the CMP EIS.
to meet demand and improvements like
covered parking and lighting.

•• In West Campus, Brooklyn Avenue provides


a continuous and direct connection
between the West Campus Green, Burke-
Gilman Trail, and University District Station
at NE 43rd Street.

114 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


University Way NE
Proposed Bike

Brooklyn Ave NE
Roosevelt Rd NE

20th Ave NE
Circulation

12th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

17th Ave NE
Figure 107. Graphics are for
Illustrative Purposes Only
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Existing Unprotected Bike Lane

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

Potential Unprotected Bike Lane

Potential Greenway

E
lvd N
Existing Shared Marked Lane

lake B
Existing Open Space Connector
(Key connection used by
e

M o nt
dg

WEST CAMPUS pedestrians and cyclist)


B ri

GREEN
ty

Potential Open Space Connector


rsi

Bo (Key connection used by


ive

at
St NE pedestrians and cyclist)
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi Improved Bicycle Use
cS
t
Existing Bike Walk Zone (when
pedestrians are present)

Paved Trail Potential Bike Walk Zone

Arboretum Bypass Connection Designated Neighborhood Green


SOUTH CAMPUS Street
GREEN Existing Protected Bike Lane University Building
Potential Protected Bike Lane Non-University Building
Future Protected Bike Lane MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 115


TRANSIT NETWORK
In 2016, while planning for this 2018 CMP was explored. The University shall continue
underway, regional light rail began serving the to work with transit agencies regarding
University, with the second station to open in improvements on non-University owned
2021. streets.

•• Sound Transit Link light rail stations •• The City of Seattle has described mobility
are major destinations for all modes of hubs as strategically placed, integrated
movement. Sidewalks may be designed to transportation options. While the City is
meet capacity needs and to visually and in the process of defining the parameters
aesthetically connect to campus. and priorities of mobility hubs, they have
suggested that these types of hubs might
•• Stevens Way, 15th Avenue NE, NE Pacific occur around the University at each Link
Street, Montlake Boulevard and Campus light rail station, at Montlake over SR 520,
Parkway are anticipated to continue and between 11th and Roosevelt near NE
to accommodate buses in the future. 45th Street.
Location of bus stops and shelters shall
change over time as transit needs evolve. •• Analysis of current and future transit
operations are provided in the
•• Bus improvements along multiple corridors Transportation Discipline Report of the
shall be explored including Roosevelt/11th CMP EIS.
Avenue, University Way NE, 15th Avenue
NE, NE Pacific Street. Expanded bus lanes
or signal priority along these corridors
may improve the speed and reliability of
transit service during congested periods.
Improvements along NE 45th Street and
Montlake Boulevard NE may also be

116 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Proposed Transit

University Way NE
Network

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
Figure 108. Graphics are for

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
Illustrative Purposes Only
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

E
lvd N
lake B
Light Rail Stop
e

M o nt
dg

WEST CAMPUS
B ri

GREEN Bus layover


ty
rsi

Bo Existing UW Shuttle Route


ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee Pa
t Existing UW Shuttle Stop
c ifi
cS
t Existing Bus Route

Existing Bus Stop

10 Minute Light Rail Walkshed

5 Minute Light Rail Walkshed


SOUTH CAMPUS University Building
GREEN
Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 117


VEHICULAR CIRCULATION CENTR AL CAMPUS Proposed Street Vacation
Improvements to bike, pedestrian, and transit •• Possible improvements to Stevens Way, One potential City of Seattle street vacation
networks encourage decreased reliance on could position Stevens Way as the primary has been identified along NE Northlake
single occupancy vehicle access to campus. bike circulator with increased access to Place, east of 8th Avenue NE. This is a dead-
Current major and minor rights-of-way largely nearby bike storage. end street, and would improve the layout of
remain intact, with possible changes noted potential development sites.
below. Opportunities for new and enhanced SOUTH CAMPUS
vehicular circulation are suggested below. •• Transformation of South Campus relies
upon the removal of NE San Juan Road in
The proposed vehicular network is identified
order to improve access to the waterfront.
on the accompanying graphic. Specific
recommendations have been organized into •• Introduces a new street that connects
two categories including the UW Right-of- NE Pacific and NE Columbia, west of the
Way Changes and Potential Street and Aerial UW Medical Center. The new road uses
Vacations. the existing curb cuts from the current
Frontage Road.
UW Right-of-Way Changes
•• Access to the Marine Studies Building is
WEST CAMPUS enhanced along a spur from NE Columbia
•• NE Cowlitz Road is removed to allow for Road.
added development.
EAST CAMPUS
•• 11th and 12th Avenues south of Campus
•• Introduces a new street south of the
Parkway are treated as shared streets with
Whatcom Lane pedestrian overpass.
minimal vehicular access. Their intended
use is for pedestrian, bike, and service •• The redevelopment of Laurel Village
vehicles only. They functionally extend includes a new internal road network that
the public realm from Lincoln Way to NE does not integrate with the adjacent city
Pacific Street and Boat Street. Service grid.
vehicles shall be able to access buildings
from the north and south without crossing •• The circulation throughout the redeveloped
the Burke-Gilman Trail. Blakeley Village remains the same.

118 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Proposed Vehicular

University Way NE
Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
Circulation

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE
Figure 109. Graphics are for

20th Ave NE
Illustrative Purposes Only
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

E
lvd N
Principal Arterial

lake B
Minor Arterial
e

M o nt
dg

WEST CAMPUS Collector Arterial


B ri

GREEN
ty

Local Road
rsi

Bo
ive

at NE
St UW Owned Road
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi
cS Potential New UW-Owned Road
t

Potential UW-Owned Road


Removal

Potential Shared Street

Potential Street Vacation


SOUTH CAMPUS
University Building
GREEN
Non-University Building

MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 119


PARKING
The existing parking cap of 12,300 parking on the map. In general, access to
spaces remains unchanged. All new parking parking facilities occurs along primary
shall remain within the 12,300 parking spaces or secondary roadways. For more
cap. information, refer to the Development
Standards on page 228.
•• Parking supply needs to be calibrated
with demand. As development is planned, •• The methodology applied to estimate
the University shall monitor the need for parking capacity (caps) and adequacy
parking replacement or additional stalls are described in the TDR of the CMP EIS.
to meet the demand throughout the
four campus sectors. The University shall
remain under the parking cap, and shall
optimize the utilization of parking facilities.

•• The accompanying map identifies


possible parking locations and access
points. These are preferred locations for
parking, although all development sites
can be considered for parking locations
as development occurs. Parking sites were
identified based upon topography, access
to primary roads, and dimensional qualities
of the site. Additional parking sites could
be considered beyond those identified

120 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Potential Parking

University Way NE
Locations

Roosevelt Rd NE

Brooklyn Ave NE
Figure 110. Graphics are for

15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
Illustrative Purposes Only
I-5

NE 45th St
NE 45th St

Memorial Way
PL9 PL10
PL17
NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St
NE 41st St
PL11

Rd
Walla
NE 41st St PL12
PL1 PL2

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

PL4 PL5 PL8

E
lvd N
PL13 PL16

lake B
PL6
e

M o nt
dg

PL3
B ri

PL7
ty
rsi

Bo
ive

at
St NE
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi
cS
PL14 t

Potential Parking Locations

Parking Access
SOUTH CAMPUS
GREEN University Building

Non-University Building
PL15
MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 121


BUILT ENVIRONMENT
FRAMEWORK
PROPOSED MASSING AND
BUILDING HEIGHTS
The 2018 CMP includes ten building height
zones that range from 30 feet along the
waterfront to 240 feet in West and South
Campuses. The City’s Shoreline Master
Program generally limits building height to 30
feet for all development within 200 feet of the
shoreline or associated wetlands. The proposed
building heights in Central Campus maintain
the existing 2003 Campus Master Plan
heights, while the proposed building heights
in East, West and South Campuses have been
increased to support a diversity of functions.

As indicated on Figure 111, building heights


proposed by the University in several areas
are being conditioned down from the
heights allowed by the City’s MIO height
designations. In addition, the height limits for
several development sites have been further
conditioned to lower maximum building
heights, please refer to the development site
tables on pages 234 to 237.

There are a variety of zoning types adjacent


to the University. The City’s University District
zoning changes (March, 2017) are included in
Figure 111.

122 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Brooklyn Ave NE
2018 Campus Master

University Way NE
12th Ave NE
Plan Maximum

Roosevelt Rd NE
C1-40
LR1 65’
Building Heights

15th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

20th Ave NE
SM-U 75-240 (M1) LR3 Figure 111. Graphics are for
LR3 Illustrative Purposes Only
SM-U C2-40
C1-65
I-5

85
LR3
NC2-65 C2-65
65’
NE 45th St
NE 45th St NC2P-40

65’

Memorial Way
SM-U 95-320 (M1)
SM-U
NE 43rd St
90’/80’
75-240 SF
160’ 50’
NC3
MR (M1) NE 42nd St
NE 41st St
SM-U/R 75-
P-65
240 (M1)

130’
SM-U
65’

Rd
75-240

Walla
NE 41st St

160’/
37’/30’

Walla
NE Campus Pkwy

240’ 105’
160’/130’

E
lvd N
200’
200’

lake B
MIO-37 conditioned to 30
65’
e

M o nt
dg

MIO-50
B ri

160’
ty

MIO-65
160’/130’
rsi

Bo
ive

at
St NE MIO-90 conditioned to 80
Un

r ee Pa
t c ifi
cS 105’ MIO-105
t
37’/30’ 65’
MIO-160 conditioned to 107
200’ MIO-160 conditioned to 130

MIO-160
160’
MIO-200
105’ 240’ MIO-240
50’ Shoreline Overlay 30 ft

MIO Boundary
Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 123
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Potential Development Sites Potential Development Capacity
The 2018 CMP has identified 86 potential The Development Site Spreadsheets in
development sites within the MIO boundary. The Development Standards chapter list the
building footprints and massing shown visualize calculated net gross square footage for each
one possible version of future development. development site, determined by identifying
As buildings are designed, the actual building conceptual footprints and applying maximum
footprints and massing may vary from those building height limits. The area calculations do
shown, within the total allowed building not include potential new construction below
envelope (see page 233). grade. The tables also identify the number
of floors, the maximum building height limit,
The recommended footprint of a potential proposed general uses, associated square
development site is based on several criteria footage and number of parking spaces removed
including, but not limited to, access to open as part of the redevelopment of the site. The
space, circulation, proximity to adjoining number of floors is based on an average 14 foot
buildings, impact on the landscape, floor-to-floor estimate. The actual floor-to-floor
opportunities for development on sites to height may vary based on the design of the
contribute to larger compositions or groupings of building, but the overall height of the building W21
buildings and open spaces, and alignment with shall remain within the maximum building W22
existing buildings. height limit.
Several projects and their square footage are Based on the conceptual footprints, conceptual W24
not yet complete, but are not included as massing, and building heights, the campus
development sites because their square footage may accommodate approximately 12.0 million W23
was accounted for within the growth allowance net new square feet of additional space in new W30
of the 2003 Campus Master Plan. Those projects buildings on the 86 potential development sites.
include: W37
•• In total, the CMP identifies roughly 17.0
•• Sites related to North Campus Housing million square feet of potential new
development. W36
•• The Computer Science Engineering II building t
St re e
•• This development potential would require i fic
•• Population Health building Pac
the demolition of roughly 5.0 million gross
square feet of space, generating a total net

dge
The University shall act upon and develop some
new development figure of 11.9 million gross

y B ri
combination of the 86 sites listed on page 124 to
page 125 until the growth allowance authorized square feet (16.9 - 5.0 = 11.9 million net new

e r sit
by this CMP is reached (the impacts of a variety gsf).

Uni v
of development alternatives were tested within
the EIS).

124 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


E81 E82
Illustrative Plan Long-Term Vision
Figure 112. Graphics are for
E84 E83 Illustrative Purposes Only
E85
E86
E80
E79 E78
E76 E77
E75 E74
C2 C6 E73 E72
C5 C7 E71
C1 E69 E68
C4 C8 E70

M
C3 E66

on
E67

tl
ak
E65 E64 E63

e
C9 C10

Bl
vd
N
E
n
i n g to E62
Parr n
L a w C11
C12
E61
C13
C14 E60
W19
E59
W20 C18
W28

C17 C15
W26 Rai
n ier
Vis t
C16 a
W27
4 W25

W29 E58
0 S39 S42 S43 S44
S38 S40
W34 W35 S56
S41
W31 S46 S47 S57
W32 S48
W33 S45

West Campus
Green S49
S50
S52
S54
S51 South Campus
Green S53 S55

Potential Building

Existing Building

Primary Open Space


Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 125
Grow th Allowance Transfer of Development Capacity with each identified development site for
The University may grow by 6.0 million net new the purposes of project design and planning.
The growth allowance may be moved between
gross square feet over the next 10 years, or the Development areas do not reflect parcel
development sites and between sectors as
life of the CMP; this represents the University’s boundaries. Projects, budgets and plans may
outlined on page 255 of the Development
growth allowance. address all goals for the entire development
Standards chapter.
area.
The growth allowance is allocated to the four
Development Areas Development and planning for the new
campus sectors as shown in the table below
as the maximum development permitted in A vibrant public realm is created incrementally significant open spaces identified in this CMP
each campus sector. The growth allowance through many individual projects. and shown in green on Figure 113 shall be
shall be utilized through build-out of some consistent with the commitments identified
combination of the 86 development sites, “Development areas” not only refers to the in the Development Standards chapter on
but it is unknown at this time what particular built structure, but also indicates responsibility page 240. Development projects adjacent to
development sites shall be developed. for the development of the landscape and significant open spaces shall be designed to
public realm on that site. Figure 113 shows reserve space and set the stage strategically
the general development area associated for their construction.

Table 8. Potential Development Capacity & Permitted Development by Campus Sector

POTENTIAL NET NEW


TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET TOTAL DEMOLISHED NET NEW MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT (GROSS MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON GROSS SQUARE FEET ON ALL DEVELOPMENT (GROSS
SQUARE FEET) ON ALL 2018 LIMIT (% OF TOTAL)
ALL 2018 SITES 2018 SITES SQUARE FEET)
SITES

CENTR AL 2,765,000 1,133,059 1,631,941 900,000 15%

WEST 4,555,000 792,801 3,762,199 3,000,000 50%

SOUTH 4,985,000 2,776,265 2,208,735 1,350,000 23%

EAST 4,655,000 361,115 4,293,885 750,000 12%

TOTAL 16,960,000 5,063,240 11,896,760 6,000,000 100%

126 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


E81 2018 Campus Master Plan
E82
Development Areas
Figure 113. Graphics are for
Illustrative Purposes Only

E80

C1 E79
C2
E78
E84 E83

E76 E85
C5 C6
C3 C4 E75 E77
E74
Parrington
Lawn C7 E73
d E72
ua
sQ E69 E71
A rt C8 E68
al E86
W22 W21 b er C9
C10 E67
W20 W19 Li E A ST C
A M PU
E66 E70
S CO N
NECTIO
N
W28 E65
E64
C18 E63
W23
W37 W24 W26 C11
C13 E62
W25
W27 C12
W30
W29
C17
W36 W31 C14
W34 E61
C16
W32 W35 E60
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN & PLAZAW33
S38
Ra

S39 E59
S40 C15
in

Development Areas
ie r

S41
V is

Potential Future Significant


ta

S49 S45 S42 Open Space, Not Part of


S50 S43 Development Area
S46
S51 S44
S47 Existing University Building
CA S52 S56
M SOU S48
PU T
S H
GR Proposed University Building
EE S53 S57
N
E58
Non-University Building
S55 S54
MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 127


INCLUSIVE
INNOVATION
FRAMEWORK
The creation of an inclusive innovation district needed to solve real world problems. Hands- in region and a top-tier place for learning and
is important for a number of reasons. It shall on learning, the demand for real world uses professional growth.
position and sustain the UW as a leader in of research, and the rise in entrepreneurship
innovation and maintain its relevance to show us that traditional learning and research The UW Campus Master Plan accounts for the
the students and the community it serves. methods need to evolve. space needed to create a robust innovation
Every day, the pioneering work of the UW district. Both West and East Campuses have
faculty and students is growing along with Taking the UW’s innovative work to the next benefits that can support a thriving innovation
the partnerships needed to make it happen. level requires changing the way education district connected to the University’s
Government, business, and the public is delivered to better reflect how students institutional mission, encourage collaboration,
are increasingly reliant upon academic learn, teachers teach, and researchers work. and give students the tools they need to solve
institutions, including the UW, to conduct Traditional campus buildings and lecture halls big problems. West Campus has roughly
research and clinical trials. Federal funding for shall give way to spaces where students, 70-acres and a development capacity of over
research is limited so collaboration is critical. faculty, researchers and others can easily 3.3 million square feet. East Campus is much
Private companies know that partnering with connect and work together. The UW is larger, however, much of the land is preserved
research-focused institutions is the best way committed to creating an inclusive innovation as part of the Union Bay Natural Area. East
to develop new ideas and work with a pool of district within its campus that shall give Campus has the capacity to house 4.4 million
exceptionally talented people. Students know students the hands-on experiences and tools square feet on 27-acres of mostly undeveloped
that they need access to new ways of learning they need to succeed, and shall reinforce the land. While overall development capacities are
in order to find a job and have the tools UW as a major innovation and economic hub significant on both West and East Campuses,

128 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


the growth allowance for West Campus is
larger at 3.0 million net new gross square feet,
versus 750,000 net new gross square feet for
East Campus.

West Campus is the most urban of the four


campus sectors and already includes many
functions that emerging innovation districts
around the country either have or are working
to include. West Campus is easily accessible by
car or public transportation, and is well-served
by bike lanes and a walkable public realm. The
vision for West Campus is anchored by a large
open space that provides views to Portage Bay
and abuts most of the proposed development
in this campus sector.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 129


The inclusive innovation framework for West Although both West Campus and East
Campus also seeks to encourage exploration Campus can support significant development
and engage social connectedness. The CMP capacity, only a small percentage of that
envisions activated ground floor functions overall capacity is earmarked for partnership
and programmed public spaces to showcase spaces. The Campus Master Plan allocates
inventions and developments in research. between 500,000 to 1,000,000 net new
The public realm is supported by flexibility gross square feet of space to facilitate the
in development opportunities that can development of an innovation district within
accommodate a range of functions, including the 10-year plan. For more information about
academic and research partnerships, discovery partnership space needs, please refer to the
centers, fabrication and prototyping spaces, space needs section on pages 34 through 35.
incubators and startup accelerators, and
University research. The long-term future of Figure 114, on the right, is for illustrative
West Campus is envisioned with a rich new purposes only. It does not modify the right-of-
open space network that reinforces its diverse way (R.O.W.) and accommodates all forms of
urban context, enhances the pedestrian transportation, including large trucks.
experience within West Campus, and connects
to South and Central Campus.

130 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Brooklyn Avenue
Figure 114. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

UR AL CENTER
ETHNIC CULT

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 131


SUSTAINABILITY
FRAMEWORK

2008

2010
2004

2006 The UW
Sustainability
Office is formed The UW’s first Sustainability
summit (October)
Environmental The UW Farm
Stewardship Policy is created Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF)
written launched

Green Office
The UW makes American Climate Action Plan
The UW Certification
College and University submitted
Greenhouse program launched
Presidents’ Climate
Gas Inventory Commitment (ACUPCC)
completed College of the
Pledge
2005

The UW named
2007

Environment founded
nation’s greenest
school by Sierra

2009
magazine

2011
Timeline of Sustainability Efforts
Figure 115.

132 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan


SUMMARY OF EXISTING of the Climate Action Plan. Since then, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) gold
the University launched the College of the rating, which is in commendation of the
SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS Environment, adopted a Leadership in Energy UW’s comprehensive achievements related
Sustainability is at the core of the University and Environmental Design (LEED) standard to sustainability in education and research,
of Washington’s mission, values, and for all new development, and won multiple planning, engagement, maintenance and
ongoing culture. The University has been sustainability awards. The UW maintains an operations, and innovation.
at the forefront of campus sustainability active membership in the Association for
the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher The CMP provides an opportunity for the
since before the Environmental Stewardship University to integrate current sustainability
Policy was written in 2004. In 2007, the Education (AASHE), a consortium of academic
institutions that are working to create a more efforts and goals into a sustainability
University signed the American College and framework for the future of the campus.
University President’s Climate Commitment sustainable future. In 2012, the University
(ACUPCC), which prompted the creation earned the first Sustainability Tracking,

2014
2012

2018
2016
Executive Order No.13 on Practice Green Health
Environmental Stewardship and Award for medical
Sustainability centers
The UW and Seattle The UW Master Plan
International Sustainable City Light partner Approved
Achieved first Sustainability
Tracking, Assessment & Rating Campus Award on solar testbed
System (STARS) Gold Rating installation

The UW Mailing Husky Stadium


Green Seed Fund Certified as LEED Silver The UW joins nationwide
Services goes bike-
established climate change pledge
powered
Green Laboratory
UW Athletics diverts
2013

program achieves 68 (Ongoing: LEED Certified


75% of all gameday
certified labs Buildings, Energy Star,
waste from landfill
Transportation Services)
The UW Fleet Services
Achieved second STARS
grows hybrid/EV vehicle
Gold Rating

2017
stock to 21% of total
Recipient of Platinum fleet
and Gold Commute Trip
Reduction Awards
2015

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 133


The purpose of the sustainability framework is
to ensure that sustainability is integrated into
the CMP guidelines for future development.
Five major sustainability goals include campus
engagement, built environment, economic
sustainability, mobility, and surrounding
ecological systems. The goals influence
decisions made regarding future development
at both macro and micro scales and impact
the University’s “triple bottom line” accounting
for social, environmental and financial
considerations.
The five sustainability goals guide campus-
wide decision-making, building on significant
work by the University in sustainability
planning and benchmarking, increasing
awareness of environmental issues and making
the UW one of the most sustainable campuses
in the country, effectively a campus that is a
sustainability learning lab.

Figure 116. Campus Sustainability Goals

134 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Engagement
Figure 117. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ENGAGEMENT
•• Continue to fund and promote •• Share knowledge generated from
The University’s sustainability summit in
sustainability research and activism sustainability research and education
2010 led to a student-initiated fund for the
University community to create sustainability- •• Continue to report sustainability metrics •• Promote environmental and conservation
focused projects in surrounding neighborhoods awareness, e.g. WCUP interpretive
that shall: •• Foster transparency in decision-making element that shall display the UW’s
sustainability programs and activities
•• Increase sustainability engagement •• Strive for excellence in sustainability
internally and externally research, education and service •• Advance the quality of study, work and life
for our campus community
•• Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration in •• Encourage community participation in
education and research campus events

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 135


Built Environment
Figure 118. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

BUILT ENVIRONMENT •• Encourage more dense development on •• Strive to achieve LEED silver certification or
campus to limit building outside of the better for on-campus building construction
With a growth allowance of 6.0 million net MIO boundary or renovation
new gross square feet, opportunities for built
environment strategies shall have a profound •• Encourage the installation of building •• Continue awareness of state of the art
and positive impact on the future campus. The energy demand-side management building construction best practices
following strategies apply system-wide policies programs
and building level interventions to reduce the
University’s carbon footprint and create a •• Consider incorporating the Climate Action
robust development program. Related goals Plan into a campus-wide Sustainability
include: Plan

136 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Economic Sustainability
Figure 119. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

FUTURE
POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY •• Incentivize research partnerships •• Encourage co-location of businesses,


retail, food, etc. that serve the campus
The UW is one of largest employers in the •• Collaborate with businesses to provide community
City, and generates hundreds of new business educational opportunities
ventures and research developments. The UW’s Most importantly, the University shall continue
selective and competitive academic programs •• Promote sustainability with campus to collaborate with the City to encourage
produce a highly educated workforce that is partners and research institutions growth and economic development for the
sought after by corporations located in Seattle benefit of the community.
and the region. The University has identified •• Maximize use of campus land through
the following strategies to strengthen more dense development
economic development locally as well as
regionally:

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 137


Mobility
Figure 120. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Provide access to business, retail,


and community amenities that benefit
the local and campus community

MOBILITY
Mobility is central to the multi-modal nature of issues related to access that include, but are UW. Participate in planning around transit
of the UW campus. In 2015, only 20 percent of not limited to, ADA, housing access, economic “hubs” to maximize their operation and
the UW community drove alone to campus. mobility, food access, etc. The following effectiveness
A 2016 survey suggests that the drive alone strategies strengthen the mobility goals within
rate declined to approximately 17.3 percent the sustainability framework: •• Work with community clubs and business
as a result of improved access to transit organizations such as the University District
including light rail. With the addition of a •• Support and increase near-campus Partnership to improve mobility to and from
second light rail station in 2021, there is an housing for faculty and staff, and on- adjacent neighborhoods
opportunity for the drive alone rate to further campus housing for students
•• Accommodate mix of transportation modes
decrease. The University actively promotes
•• Integrate all modes of on-campus including bike and car as these develop and
strengthened pedestrian and public transit
transportation provide potential to improve campus travel
routes to encourage alternative modes of
options
transportation and retain the low rate of SOV •• Strengthen the effectiveness and
drivers. Sustainable mobility goes beyond relationship between King County Metro, •• Encourage complete streets, designed to
commuting patterns, encompassing a range City of Seattle, Sound Transit and the enable safe access to all users of all abilities,
138 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan to improve universal access around campus.
Ecological Systems
Figure 121. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
The University of Washington is surrounded
by and is an integral part of significant
and vital ecological systems. The University
strives to be a good steward of ecological
systems throughout campus, a commitment
that is illustrated in the Campus Landscape
Framework (CLF). The University may strive to: •• Continue to engage local food initiatives •• Integrate stormwater management needs
and on-campus farming into the campus landscape in a manner
•• Continue to use the Urban Forest that enhances biodiversity balanced with
Management Plan as a living document •• Consider campus carbon sequestration University uses
and framework
•• Consider complete streets as a tool for •• Utilize best practices for integrated pest
•• Encourage more dense development that access and storm water mitigation management to maintain landscape and
retains the UW open space network control invasive plants
•• Increase the number of shade trees and
•• Pursue best practices for preserving permeable surfaces where possible •• Provide opportunities for education and
and improving tree canopy, reducing research using the landscape
•• Look for opportunities to manage
impervious surfaces, and enhancing the
stormwater onsite
open space network on campus

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 139


UTILITY
FRAMEWORK
OVERVIEW growth but not all, which shall require the PRIMARY CAMPUS UTILITIES
University to work with the City to plan for
The discussion that follows provides an the full growth allowance. Steam
evaluation of the capacities of existing
energy and utility systems - both plants and •• There are no known capacity issues related The current steam plant has the capacity to
distribution systems - to support the growth to water, sanitary sewer, and storm accommodate the entire growth allowance.
allowance of 6.0 million net new gross square drainage, but each utility will be evaluated Central, South and portions of East and West
feet as outlined in this CMP. Based on past as new development occurs. Campus are served by steam (distributed at
development trends, the University could build
•• Campus utility system capacities are two pressures, 185 psi and 12psi) generated
between 400,000 gsf to 600,000 gsf per year
generally understood for each campus in the UW Power Plant and distributed via
over the life of the CMP, as funding is available.
sector. However, in order to improve tunnel systems throughout campus. The plant
•• Campus steam, compressed air, water system understanding and support has an installed capacity of 870 MMBtuh
supply and sanitary sewer systems can growth for each campus sector, additional (Million Btu/hr.) and a capacity of 620 MMBtuh
accommodate the growth allowance. analysis shall be undertaken in conjunction (million Btu/hr.) with its largest boiler out of
with the identification of uses, building service. The campus has a current peak load
•• The University shall continue conversations programs, and phasing of future campus of approximately 300 MMBtuh. Load growth
with Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to better development authorized by this CMP. of up to approximately 175 MMBtuh can be
understand capacity issues related to SPU- accommodated within the current plant
owned facilities. The capital investments described in this capacity.
chapter are in addition to the University’s
•• Depending on the mix of uses, campus current investment activity and plans, which Chilled Water
chilled water and emergency standby address operational and deferred maintenance
power systems and associated Chilled water for campus is currently provided
needs to serve the existing building stock. at the UW Power Plant for 12,000 tons of
infrastructure shall likely have the ability or
flexibility to accommodate this growth. installed capacity. The 2016 first phase
of the West Central Utility Plant (WCUP)
•• Regardless of mix of uses, existing primary construction has a capacity of 4,500 tons. As
power can accommodate some of the demand growth justifies it, construction of
the second phase shall be triggered adding
an additional 6,000 tons of installed capacity
to phase 1, within the long-term vision, a

140 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


capacity of 10,500 tons. Between the two Compressed Air
plants the campus shall have an installed
The existing central air compressor plant was
capacity of 22,500 tons and an available
recently upgraded with two 2400 cfm air
capacity of approximately 20,000 tons with
compressors which shall provide sufficient
the largest chiller out of service.
capacity to meet the entire growth allowance.
The current chilled water plant capacity (UW The UW Power Plant generates compressed air
Power Plant and WCUP long-term vision) for use in the plant, in building environmental
shall support approximately 4.0 million to 6.0 control systems and in labs. Future demand
million gsf of net space growth. This broad for compressed air is expected to increase
estimate depends on the program mix of only gradually as new buildings tend to be
growth. This combined capacity serves the less reliant on compressed air. Renewal and
entire campus. When campus growth nears capacity upgrades in 2017 / 2018 ensure
the limits of the University’s chilled water sufficient capacity to meet future campus
plants’ shared capacity (a more cautious growth.
approach could start that planning as early
as 2017), additional growth can be provided Primary Power
through a combination of: Primary power on the campus is provided by
Seattle City Light (SCL) through two receiving
•• Additional capacity at the UW Power
stations; the East Receiving station located
Plant.
at the Main Plant and the West Receiving
•• Development of an additional single or station located in West Campus adjacent
multiple chilled water plant(s) if the mix of to the WCUP. 13.8 kV distribution provides
uses requires it. power to campus buildings. Some buildings,
primarily in areas near the campus boundaries
•• Installation of chillers in individual (new) of West Campus are served directly from the
buildings. SCL grid and have building-level metering. The
present primary firm peak capacity for the
campus is 66MVA. The existing peak load is
approximately 55MVA.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 141


Depending on the use mix in new buildings, Emergency and Standby Power the full load growth may require additional
the current primary power capacity has the capacity. Any new construction that warrants
Emergency and standby power systems
ability to accommodate approximately 1.5 to substantial emergency standby power, may
on campus serve life safety and optional
2.0 million net new gross square feet across consider local generators.
standby power loads respectively. Power
the campus.
is generated primarily from diesel-driven A reliable calculation of need can be
Additional growth above 1.5 to 2.0 million engine generators located at the UW Power established with better understanding of the
net new gross square feet shall require Plant and recently installed at the WCUP. new program. Assuming this estimate is in the
further investments. District-specific growth There is also a steam turbine generator range of 10-15 MVA, options for providing this
projections, the SCL perspective (its analysis located in the UW Power Plant which runs additional capacity include a combination of:
and longer-term plans) and a cost-benefit continuously (when not being serviced) and
analysis shall determine the best way to provides an uninterruptible supply of non- •• Additional capacity at the UW Power Plant
provide for the total planned campus growth life safety power to the plant. This turbine (limited space available).
at a new substation fed directly from SCL’s generator is aged and is anticipated to be
decommissioned in the near future. Since it •• Single or multiple (regional) new
transmission system, through expansion of
currently serves as the emergency standby emergency/standby power plant(s).
one or both of the existing substations fed
from SCL’s distributions system, and/or by power supply for the central Power Plant, it
•• Local generation installed in each new
serving additional buildings directly from the shall be necessary to provide local emergency
building.
existing SCL grid (exclusively a West Campus standby power through addition of a local
response). It is reasonable to assume that dedicated generator. Its service shall be
absorbed into that provided by other elements Water
multiple new circuits shall be required from the
West Receiving Station and/or from the East of the emergency and standby power network Water is supplied to campus by Seattle Public
Receiving Station to accommodate growth. (largely the WCUP). In addition, there are Utilities. Based on available water meter data,
numerous stand-alone diesel generators the campus has a current water demand of
In addition to capacity, power reliability on located throughout the campus. approximately 12 gal/bldg gsf/year. This is
campus is an ongoing problem. The UW based on a sample of representative metered
Plant Operations staff is working with SCL The current emergency and standby capacity buildings, as many of the old buildings on
and others to evaluate a series of options to for the generators at the UW Power Plant and campus do not have water meters and the
increase the reliability of the existing service the WCUP (long-term vision) is 22MVA. addition of new conserving systems. With a
to and within the campus. New electrical long-term vision of the CMP at 6.0 million net
Depending on whether the new construction
infrastructure on campus may be developed to new gsf, the campus can expect demand to
shall have a significant component of
work with those improvements and enhance increase by approximately 200,000 gal/day.
technical buildings with moderate-to-large
them where feasible.
standby power requirements, accommodating There are currently no known capacity
issues with the water system, but during the
development of each project the relative

142 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


connection point to the City’s system may Storm Drainage •• Post-construction stormwater
be evaluated to see if additional lines are management for new development and
The UW is Salmon-Safe Certified and follows
required. redevelopment.
Low Impact Development (LID) practices as
a matter of policy or standard practice to •• Pollution prevention and good
Sanitary Sewer reduce rainwater/stormwater runoff volume housekeeping for facilities operations.
The University-owned sanitary sewer system and improve outgoing water quality for new
varies based on campus location. The majority construction, major renovation, and other The majority of stormwater on campus either
of Central Campus and portions of West projects. Salmon-Safe is an independent flows to University- or City-owned storm drain
Campus flow to the KC Metro trunk line, while non-profit whose mission is to transform land lines, before discharging into a nearby water
East Campus flows directly to City-owned management practices so Pacific salmon can body. Per the City of Seattle’s 2016 regulations,
sanitary sewer lines. Buildings in the south thrive in West Coast watersheds. on-site stormwater management practices
flow to either a University- or City-owned shall be implemented to control the flow
lift station, before connecting to the KC Under federal and state guidelines, the UW rate of the runoff and achieve water quality
Metro trunk line. Based on available water is classified as a Phase I Permit Secondary standards before the water is discharged.
meter data, and known irrigation demands, Permittee, and shall comply with applicable
the current sewer demand is approximately Phase I Permit requirements. The University A portion of Central Campus flows to the
11 gal/bldg gsf/year. With the long-term also complies with City of Seattle storm water University-owned sanitary sewer system,
vision of the CMP at 6.0 million net new gsf, regulations. which connects to the KC Metro trunk line. In
the campus can expect sewer demand to large storm events, this line reaches capacity
The University of Washington has a series of and KC Metro allows the combined storm and
increase by approximately 190,000 gal/day.
initiatives to handle stormwater: sanitary water to overflow into Portage Bay.
This is equivalent to 132 gal/min, distributed
throughout the whole campus, without •• Public education and outreach on the Throughout the implementation of the CMP,
accounting for a peak demand. impacts of stormwater pollution. storm drain separation shall take place, where
There are currently no known capacity issues possible, to avoid such overflows.
•• Public involvement and participation.
with University-owned lift stations, but
In addition, stormwater shall be used for
each lift station may be evaluated as new •• Detection and elimination of illicit
irrigation and other grey water practices,
development occurs. There are no known discharges.
when possible, to reduce the water demand on
capacity issues associated City-owned
•• Stormwater treatment infrastructure campus.
systems except for the SPU owned lift station
at Brooklyn Avenue and Boat Street. The techniques including catch basin filtration
There are currently no known capacity issues
University shall work with SPU to plan for as new development occurs (particularly in
with the University’s storm drainage systems,
additional capacity for the future. West Campus).
but storm drainage shall be evaluated as new
•• Construction site stormwater runoff development occurs.
control.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 143


DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS pressure to Central Campus (and, with to involve the long-term phased demolition
that, to adjacent areas of campus). As and replacement of the buildings in the Health
Campus steam, chilled water, compressed air, the University prepares to undertake Sciences Center, the S-1 Garage and some of
and emergency power are most frequently this investment, a capital plan shall the buildings to the south of the garage. These
distributed in tunnels. be developed based on a then-current structures are replaced with new buildings
Upgrades and enhancements shall be required analysis that identifies specific locations with underground parking that displaces
in those distribution systems to support the with flow/pressure limitations and assesses the existing utility tunnels in the sector.
growth allowance identified in the CMP. Once tunnel conditions. New tunnels and associated utilities shall be
the CMP’s illustration of physical growth constructed below these parking levels to
allowance by district is accompanied by COMPRESSED AIR support utility distribution. This transformative
an understanding of program and phased scale development – with or without the
•• An assessment of current loads is
development, the University shall have the key trigger of underground garages forcing
necessary to determine whether upgrades
ingredients to launch a utility master plan. utility relocations – necessitates system-scale
to the distribution system are required.
The utility master plan shall leverage existing investments in energy and utility infrastructure
knowledge of the capacities and limitations which can be phased to complement a
PRIMARY POWER
of its distribution systems with updated building/redevelopment phasing plan.
information and modeling. •• New feeder sets may be required to be Following are the growth impacts anticipated
routed in the tunnels or through duct for each utility.
banks to support the proposed growth.
Central Campus
STEAM AND CONDENSATE
2018 CMP growth of Central Campus includes EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER
900,000 gsf of net new space. •• The replacement and upgrade of existing
•• New feeder sets shall be required to be steam and condensate distribution shall be
routed in the tunnels or through duct needed to accommodate phased growth.
STEAM AND CONDENSATE
banks to support the proposed growth.
•• Upgrades are required in the piping in the CHILLED WATER
west and northwest trunks. COMMUNICATIONS •• Upgrades and enhancements to piping in
•• Piping extensions shall be required to new •• New fiber and cabling shall be required to multiple tunnel locations shall be needed
building sites. support connection of the new buildings to to provide adequate flow/pressure to South
the campus backbone. Campus and adjacent sectors of campus.
CHILLED WATER
South Campus COMPRESSED AIR
•• Upgrades and enhancements to piping
in multiple tunnel locations shall be 2018 CMP growth of South Campus •• Replacement and upgrade of existing
needed to provide adequate flow/ includes 1,350,000 gsf of net new space. compressed air distribution are needed to
Redevelopment of South Campus is envisioned accommodate phased growth.

144 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


PRIMARY POWER that development of West Campus be •• Potential locations for direct buried piping
•• Replacement and upgrade of existing supported through a tunneled distribution serving this sector of campus, shall be
primary power distribution are needed to system to offer the University buildings the identified through further analysis.
accommodate the anticipated growth. best reliability of service. Located under
Feeder sets shall be calibrated to support city streets, this approach offers the best CHILLED WATER
the power requirements associated with longevity for those systems within the tunnels,
•• Significant upgrades shall be required to
the specific program of this district which which translates into the least disruptions
support growth in this sector. New piping,
is anticipated to have high power intensity to the functioning of the City grid when
either in dedicated tunnels or in building
needs (related to its density of lab space, system maintenance or repair is needed. The
service corridors shall be required to
vivaria, etc.) University shall coordinate with the City to
support loads and new building locations.
design and construct this city streets strategy.
This work may be coordinated with
Following are the growth impacts anticipated
EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER the new piping and design parameters
by each utility.
•• Replacement and upgrade of existing associated with the WCUP.
emergency and standby power distribution STEAM AND CONDENSATE •• Potential locations for direct buried piping
shall be needed to accommodate the
•• Upgrades to piping in the Campus serving this sector of campus, shall be
anticipated growth. Feeder sets shall
Parkway trunk are required to support the identified through further analysis.
be calibrated to support the power
requirements associated with the growth allowance.
COMPRESSED AIR
specific program of this district which is
•• New piping, either in dedicated tunnels
anticipated to have high power intensity •• Upgrades, extension and replacement of
or in building service corridors, shall be
needs (related to its density of lab space, piping in the Campus Parkway trunk shall
required to support loads and new building
vivaria, etc.) be required to support growth.
locations. In capital planning for the
growth articulated in the CMP for West •• Careful evaluation may occur on whether
COMMUNICATIONS Campus, the University shall consider the compressed air shall be required as a utility
•• New fiber and cabling shall be required to cost and benefit of looping new piping for the buildings slated for this sector of
support connection of the new buildings to with the west trunk to increase reliability in campus.
the campus backbone. this part of campus.
PRIMARY POWER
•• New router rooms shall be required to •• Significant upgrades shall be required to
serve the increased density of space. support growth in this sector. New piping, •• Replacement and upgrade of existing
either in dedicated tunnels or in building primary power distribution is required to
West Campus service corridors shall be required to accommodate phased growth. This is
support loads and new building locations. anticipated to include additional feeder
2018 CMP growth of West Campus includes
This work may be coordinated with sets to support the power requirements
3,000,000 gsf of net new space. It is planned
the new piping and design parameters associated with increased square footage
associated with the WCUP. as well and high power intensity building

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 145


programs. Alternatively, some of the new STEAM AND CONDENSATE COMPRESSED AIR
building sites could be served directly from •• East Campus has limited steam/ •• Currently there is limited compressed air
the existing SCL grid in the sector. condensate distribution which is located distribution in this sector.
in the south end of East Campus serving
EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER the Intramural Activities Building and the •• Careful evaluation may occur on whether
Alaska Airlines Arena at Hec Edmundson compressed air is required as a utility
•• There is adequate emergency and
Pavilion. for the buildings slated for this sector of
standby distribution in West Campus.
campus.
New distribution is required to connect to
•• To accommodate geographically dispersed
capacity in the WCUP, or buildings could
growth in the long-term vision, two new PRIMARY POWER
be served by on-site generators.
connections to the Central Campus system
•• There is limited distribution of primary
are recommended: one at the south end
COMMUNICATIONS power in this sector. Significant additional
connecting at or near the UW Power Plant
distribution is required to support the
•• New fiber and cabling are required to and the second at the north end. Within
substantial growth identified for this
support connection of each new building East Campus a gridded distribution system
sector as part of the long-term vision.
to the campus backbone. is required to respond to the design of the
Multiple new feeder sets shall be required
long-term vision illustrated in the CMP.
to be brought from an existing or new
East Campus substation.
2018 CMP growth of East Campus includes CHILLED WATER
750,000 gsf of net new space. East Campus •• There is currently no chilled water EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER
has very limited distribution due to its lack distribution in East Campus. Buildings are
•• This sector of campus is served by a single
of current development. New tunnels and/or served by local chillers.
emergency/ standby feeder. Given the
direct buried distribution systems are required
•• To accommodate the growth envisioned significant growth anticipated in this
to enable expanded utility distribution in this
for this sector, two new connections sector, additional feeders and a gridded
sector. Given the relative isolation of this
to the Central Campus system are distribution network are required
sector, the scale of the development that is
being contemplated and in relationship to a recommended, one at the south end
subsequent phasing plan for this growth, it connecting at or near the UW Power Plant COMMUNICATIONS
may be prudent to provide a satellite plant and the second at the north end. Within •• New fiber and cabling are required to
in the sector with some or all of the primary East Campus a gridded distribution system support connection of each new building
utilities identified below: shall be required to respond to the design to the campus backbone.
of the CMP.
•• New router rooms are required to serve the
increased density of space.

146 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan


Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan 147
6PROJECT REVIEW
AND DESIGN
GUIDANCE
148 July 2017 Final Plan
•• INTRODUCTION

•• PROJECT REVIEW

•• DESIGN GUIDANCE

•• CENTRAL CAMPUS

•• WEST CAMPUS

•• SOUTH CAMPUS

•• EAST CAMPUS

July 2017 Final Plan 149


INTRODUCTION

Chapter 6 contains detailed information on


the 10-year conceptual plan for campus,
including sector-by-sector descriptions
of the design goals for each area. This
Chapter further provides information on
the University’s Project Review Processes,
and includes non-binding design guidance.
Although non-binding, design guidance will be
implemented through capital project design
and environmental review carried out by the
Architectural Commission, the University
Landscape Advisory Committee, the Design
Review Board (all as applicable), and project
design teams. In a few places, development
standards are referenced; these standards are
set out and explained further as mandatory
requirements in Chapter 7.

150 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
PROJECT REVIEW

DEMOLITION other campus constituents. These committees University, the University will consult with UW
provide advice to the Provost before departments, CUCAC, and stakeholders in the
Demolition is permitted prior to future presentation to the Board of Regents of the area of the sites being considered and include
development as long as sites are left in a proposed six year facilities plan which is called that information in the site selection report.
safe condition and free of debris. Demolition the “One Capital Plan”. The Board of Regents
permits are submitted in advance of a building is charged with the final adoption of capital Based on analysis of past development trends,
site being selected for development and any and operating budget proposals prior to need, and funding sources, it is anticipated
grading work is reviewed under the Grading submittal to the Governor’s Office of Financial that during the life of this Plan the University
Code (SMC Chapter 22.170). Demolition of Management (OFM) and the State Legislature will build on average 600,000 gross square
any structure, including any structure that is for approval. feet of net new buildings annually for a total
more than 25 years old or historic, is allowed if development of 6.0 million net new gross
authorized by the UW Board of Regents. Each major capital project is reviewed for square feet over the life of the 2018 Campus
feasibility, priority, timing, site and cost in Master Plan. However, there may be some
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND the context of the Campus Master Plan. The years where development is more or less than
functional program for each new building is 600,000 net new gross square feet.
PHASING of critical importance to the site selection
process. Identification of the specific potential The University prepares an annual report
The process of identifying projects and
development sites that will be developed over pursuant to the City-University Agreement.
priorities for capital budgets is initiated by the
the life of the Campus Master Plan depends The Annual Report contains information on
University and involves several steps beginning
on the prioritizing of major capital projects the University’s capital facillities development
with an assessment of academic need. Capital
as driven by academic need and funding program as identified in the “One Capital
facilities needs are reviewed for academic
availability. Capital projects funding can Plan” and Capital Budget Request, changes
need and priority assessment by the University
depend upon one or more sources of funds to these requests, new projects, on-going
administration.
including funds from the State Legislature projects, and major and minor plan changes.
The capital budget priorities are reviewed for specific projects, the use of University The Annual Report contains information
and developed through discussion with the debt, gifts and grants. Specific capital on new projects, identifies sites chosen for
University administration, the UW Senate projects scope and timing are not possible development, provides a description of the
Committee on Planning and Budgeting, the to predict in detail due to the changes in program or structure proposed (including gross
Faculty Committee on University Facilities and academic need and funding sources. As sites square footage), and provides the anticipated
Services, the Board of Deans, and numerous are being considered for development by the schedule for development.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 151
DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL modifications to these elements, and campus relative to University planning and landscape
plans. The Commission advises the Regents design for new construction or renovation.
REVIEW PROCESS and President in the selection of architects Issues reviewed include, but are not limited to:
The University’s processes for design and and design team principals for projects that site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians;
environmental review encourage better design influence the campus setting, and periodically parking location, screening and development;
and site planning to help ensure that new reviews the design of such projects through all placement and selection of site furnishings,
development enhances the character of the design phases. The Commission advises the signage, and lighting; the location of
campus, while allowing for functionality and University administration on environmental landscape features; open space development
creativity. The University’s processes provide issues as they may arise, including historic and connectivity; preservation of existing
for flexibility in the application of design preservation, new construction, additions and selection of new trees and vegetation;
guidance to meet the intent of the CMP, to existing buildings, major interior public irrigation performance; and conformance with
effective mitigation of a proposed project’s space, renovations of existing significant the CMP.
height, bulk, and scale impacts, and improved buildings, and development of the campus
communication and mutual understanding grounds including landscape features and Design Review Board
among the University, neighbors, CUCAC, and plantings and conformance with the CMP.
The primary purpose of the UW’s Design
the City of Seattle. In making recommendations involving the
Review Board (DRB) is to maximize the
campus grounds, the Commission shall seek
Major and minor projects with the potential functionality and desirable experiential
consultation of the University Landscape
for impacts on the visitor experience of the qualities of the Seattle campus, its facilities
Advisory Committee (ULAC). The Commission
campus setting are reviewed by the UW and setting. The DRB reviews projects with
considers the design guidance provided in the
Architectural Commission, the University budgets less than $5 million, and/or projects
CMP during its review.
Landscape Advisory Committee and/or the that either individually or cumulatively have
UW Design Review Board. The University’s temporary or permanent visual and/or
University Landscape Advisory functional impacts on the campus setting,
design review processes foster good Committee
stewardship of the campus setting. including any historic resources. The campus
The University Landscape Advisory Committee setting is defined for DRB purposes as the
University of Washington (ULAC) plays a key role in helping to preserve campus landscape, plantings, circulation
Architectural Commission and enhance the unique character of the corridors and gathering places, building
University’s outdoor spaces and attain high exteriors, public spaces and rights-of-way,
For projects that are generally over $5 million quality campus environments. The Committee, signage, and significant interior public spaces.
dollars and that may result in a significant established in 1970, is advisory to the The Board conducts multi-discipline review
change to campus in terms of setting, Architectural Commission and the University of project plans at the earliest possible time
public realm, visual aesthetics or pedestrian adminstraion concerning design review of in a project so that the project may achieve
experience, the University of Washington projects proposed for construction in relation its goals and those of the University within
Architectural Commission (UWAC), established to their influence on the outdoor environment. budget and schedule parameters. The DRB
in 1957, reviews and evaluates the selection considers the design guidance provided in
of building sites, design of new buildings The Committee is charged with the the Plan during its review and advises on
and public spaces, major additions and responsibility of reviewing significant matters conformance with the CMP.

152 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
University Architect authorized by the CMP will rely on that public purpose that is essential to the future
document and the University will complete of the State, and this purpose requires that
The Office of the University Architect (OUA) is
additional environmental review where the campus continue to be developed to meet
the University’s physical and capital planning
appropriate, in compliance with SEPA. the growing and changing education needs of
office. Its staff of planners, designers, and
the State. Today, as in the past, the campus
policy analysts provides leadership, counsel The University’s SEPA Advisory Committee provides a sense of permanency and place. It is
and oversight regarding campus planning, reviews preliminary environmental documents a place of civic pride and beauty. The buildings
landscape and architectural design, historic and makes recommendations regarding their and landscapes demonstrate and preserve the
resource stewardship, strategic transportation, adequacy, identifies environmental issues accomplishments of the past while providing
environmental planning, sustainability and and concerns of a campus-wide nature, and for the future and allowing development of
energy planning, and space and capital suggests mitigating measures. Under the architectural innovations. The campus layout is
resource planning. Oversight and integration City-University Agreement, environmental based on a series of plans which began when
of these various disciplines is managed by documents are provided to the City University the campus moved from downtown Seattle to
OUA staff who participate in many campus Community Advisory Committee for review its present location in 1895.
committees including the University of and comment.
Washington Architectural Commission Campus planning and historic preservation
(UWAC), the University Landscape Advisory and innovation have been continuous for over
Committee (ULAC) and the University of HISTORIC PRESERVATION 100 years and will continue to provide the
Washington Public Arts Commission (UWPAC), REVIEW, POLICIES AND context for campus development in the future.
the Environmental Stewardship Committee,
the University Transportation Committee PRACTICES The University regards building preservation,
reuse, and rehabilitation as a continuium with
(UTC), the Grounds Improvement Advisory History of Stewardship by the Board new construction undertaken when other
Committee (GIAC), and the SEPA Advisory of Regents options are not reasonably feasible. Major
Committee. landscape features established over many
Over the last century, the University of
years, including formal and informal open
SEPA Advisory Committee Washington Board of Regents has been the
spaces, views, vistas, and axes, continue to be
steward of the University of Washington
As lead agency for State Environmental preserved and strengthened. The University’s
campus. The Regents recognize the value
Policy Act (SEPA) review, the University physical setting continues to satisfy academic,
of the campus setting to the University, the
prepares environmental documents, conducts social and cultural requirements of students,
greater University area community, the City
environmental review, and makes final faculty, and staff consistent with its primary
of Seattle, the State of Washington, and
environmental determinations. Because mission.
future generations. As a state institution
the environmental impacts of University of higher education, the Regents have full
development in this CMP are studied in a control and authority over the development
non-project EIS that accompanies this Plan, of the campus, except as otherwise provided
environmental review for specific projects by law. The institution is encumbered with a

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 153
Historic Features the Campus 50 (or a successor order), involving several makers as well as shared with and considered
Master Plan reviewing bodies including: by the project team. The required contents of
the HRA are defined further below.
In this Campus Master Plan, the significant •• University of Washington Architectural
buildings sited as part of the Oval Plan of Commission The information and analysis provided in
1898, the 1904 Olmsted Plan, the 1909 Plan’s the HRA provides a framework and context
Rainier Vista, the 1915 Plan’s Liberal Arts •• Campus Landscape Advisory Committee to ensure that important elements of the
Quadrangle, Memorial Way, Drumheller campus, its historic character and value,
Fountain (Denny, Parrington, Lewis and Clark •• Design Review Board
environmental considerations and landscape
Halls; original buildings making up the Quad; context are preserved, enhanced, and valued.
•• University of Washington’s SEPA Advisory
and the original portion of Suzzallo Library) The HRA further insures that improvements,
Committee
and accompanying radials will all remain changes and modifications to the physical
prominent features of the campus. These •• Office of the University Architect environment may be clearly analyzed and
important features, axes, and open spaces are documented.
part of the historic structure of the campus •• Board of Regents (the ultimate decision
and will continue to be recognized as essential maker) The University also conducts related processes
components of the University campus. that ensure consideration of historic resources,
Each reviewing body is responsible for raising including the University’s implementation of
In addition to these well-known features, there issues for consideration and balancing the State Environmental Policy Act. Through
are other prominent features for which the the desirability and means of protecting, the SEPA process, the University considers
University is recognized. Many of these are enhancing, and perpetuating historic (person, the potential impacts of development on
unique and significant landscapes and are event or structure), cultural, engineering historic and cultural resources, including
identified on page 97. Registered State and and architectural campus resources in terms buildings and sites less than 50 years old. The
Federal Historic Buildings are identified in page of buildings, spaces and elements of the University’s SEPA process is set forth in chapter
92. environment, with the desirability of fostering 478-324 WAC. Ultimately, the University’s
continuous use, required improvements and Executive Vice President and the Associate
Project Review to Insure Historic innovations for significant buildings. Vice President for Capital Planning and
Context Development (or their successor positions)
To aid the reviewing bodies and further
While fostering continuous use, improvements and the University Architect review the SEPA
ensure that historic resources are respected,
and innovations to significant buildings, determination, any HRA’s related to the
the University prepares a Historic Resources
the University works to insure that historic project and any recommendations from the
Addendum (HRA) for any project that
significance, value and association of the bodies reviewing the project to determine the
makes exterior alterations to a building or
campus is preserved for the community, City, appropriate action that should be taken to
landscape more than 50 years of age, or
State and nation. To insure this occurs on a balance all the issues raised by the reviewing
that is adjacent to a building or landscape
comprehensive project-by-project basis, the bodies. The Executive Vice President consults
feature more than 50 years of age (excluding
University utilizes a multi-step process for with the Associate Vice President for Capital
routine maintenance and repair). The HRA is
historic preservation review, outlined in the Planning and Development and the University
an attachment to all project documentation
University President’s Executive Order No. Architect to ensure the HRA is addressed
and is considered by the appropriate decision
before determining the appropriate course of

154 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
action to recommend to the Board of Regents •• Description of interior and exterior, and age, or scale that makes it an easily
for the project. The Board of Regents makes site surroundings of the building or campus identifiable visual feature of the campus
the final decision on the project. feature, including the traditional views of and contributes to the distinctive quality or
the site, if any. identity of the campus.
The review of historic resources on the campus
utilizes the process stated above and does not •• Information regarding the distinctive visible •• Information regarding the location of
include a review under the City of Seattle’s characteristics of an architectural style, or the new project, entrances, service,
Landmark Preservation Ordinance. The period, or of a method of construction, if access and circulation, front/back, bulk,
University’s position is that it is not subject to any. scale, materials, architectural character,
the ordinance, as the University of Washington profile, open space and landscape siting,
Board of Regents has full control and authority •• Information regarding the roles of the relative to the building or feature older
over all development on campus.1 structure, site and surroundings have than 50 years, including opportunities to
played on campus and in the community, complement the older surroundings and
The Historic Resource Addendum if any. buildings literally or through contrast.
(HR A) •• Information regarding the character, •• Potential mitigation measures, such as
In preparing the HRA, the following interest or value as part of the facade treatment, street treatment and
information shall be provided to the extent development, heritage or cultural design treatment sympathetic to the
known. Information regarding these characteristics of the campus, city, state, historic significance of the development
considerations may or may not be available or nation, if any. site or adjacent campus feature, if any.
or relevant for a particular proposed
development. The HRA shall be appropriately •• Information regarding any association with •• Information in historic resource surveys
updated as the project evolves prior to final an historic event with a significant effect prepared by outside consultants, if any,
Regent action. For proposed construction that upon the campus, community, city, state, and found on the DAHP WISAARD online
makes exterior alterations to a building or or nation, if any. database.
landscape more than 50 years of age or that is
•• Information regarding the association with
adjacent to a building or landscape older than
50 years, information described in the bullets
the life of a person important in the history OFF-CAMPUS LEASING AND
of the campus, city, state, or nation, if any.
below shall be addressed in the HRA to the ACQUISITION
extent it is available. •• Information regarding the association The University limits its real property leasing
with a significant aspect of the cultural, outside the MIO to spaces or land as necessary
•• Age of project building, adjacent buildings
political, or economic heritage of the to carry out the University’s educational,
and open spaces. (See Appendix on page
campus, community, city, state or nation, research, and service missions that cannot
292 for the age of campus features.)
if any. reasonably be accommodated within existing
•• Information regarding architect of the University facilities. The University follows the
•• Information regarding the prominence of requirements of the City-University Agreement
original building.
the spatial location, contrasts of siting, related to off-campus leasing and acquisition.

1
Arguments related to this topic have been heard by the Washington Supreme Court. A decision is pending.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 155
DESIGN GUIDANCE

ACTIVE EDGES GATEWAYS PARKING LOCATION


The CMP supports the goal of activating The UW-Seattle campus is embedded within Where physically and financially possible, new
the ground floor of buildings, along both the larger urban fabric of the city and has parking shall be accommodated underground
public right-of-way, as well as on University multiple points of access. Gateways serve as with minimal visual impact on or conflict
streets. Ground floor uses may include offices, important access points for pedestrians, bikes, with the public realm. Where physically
commercial, academic, housing, mixed-uses, and vehicles, and may provide a welcoming and financially not possible, above grade
lounges and multi-use lobbies, cafes, retail, and clear sense of arrival on campus. parking is allowed. Above grade parking shall
hands-on collaboration spaces, convening Gateways also form key points of connectivity be wrapped with non-parking uses to the
spaces and meeting rooms. Such spaces between campus sectors. maximum extent possible on the active edges.
may be thoughtfully placed and configured.
The intent is to locate functions that attract
pedestrian traffic in buildings along a street
GREEN FACTOR PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN
edge and that contribute to the liveliness and The University leverages its Urban Forestry CONNECTORS
attractiveness of the vicinity. Management Plan, best practices, and Buildings, site improvements, infrastructure
Design Review processes as it designs campus and landscapes may support and reinforce
All development sites with active edges landscapes. The University shall make best legible and safe pedestrian movement;
may have well-placed clearly identified and efforts to be consistent with the City of promote connections to major transit nodes;
accessible pedestrian entry points, and Seattle’s Green Factor requirements. create a functional pedestrian circulation
ground level facades that make visible interior
network; reinforce connections to the
amenities and activities. The design may
contribute to and enhance the quality of MODULATION waterfront; and embrace best practices with
regard to universal design. Development may
streetscape and neighborhood character with The design of buildings shall strive to
promote urban design best practices regarding
multi-functional landscapes and pedestrian- incorporate measures that provide for
streetscapes, green streets, parking, lighting,
environment amenities. Efforts should be appropriate variety, break down massing,
landscape, street furniture, signage, and
made to minimize blank facades. Where express varying functions of the building and
pedestrian and bike integration.
possible, parking entrances on active edges respect the pedestrian scale at the ground
should be minimized. level.

156 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
The maps on pages 174, 189, 208, and 226
identify priority pedestrian connectors
associated with new development, and are
intended to function as central locations
for pedestrian movement. Generally, the
connectors may maintain a minimum width of
8 feet and could include pedestrian-oriented
amenities, such as benches, paving, and
landscape features.

SERVICE AND EMERGENCY


VEHICLE ACCESS
Loading, emergency access, and other service
points may be located strategically, and away
from major pedestrian thoroughfares and
intersections to the greatest extent feasible.
Where it is possible to share service areas and
access with more than one site, this may be
desirable to limit impacts.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 157
CENTRAL
CAMPUS
Figure 122. Central Campus Existing Aerial, 2016 Central Campus Key Map

10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN


Central Campus is a hub of learning activity
and knowledge sharing, and it accommodates
most academic and research facilities. Central
Campus is home to the historic academic
core and is characterized by significant open
spaces framed by a mix of historic and recent
buildings. The 10-year conceptual plan for
Central Campus is designed to:

•• Preserve and enhance the character of the


historic setting and its significant buildings
and open spaces.

•• Maintain existing building height limits.

•• Concentrate development along the


periphery of Campus sector to minimize
interference with the existing campus
character.

•• Provide additional capacity to support


the University’s educational, research and
service missions.

Figure 123. CENTRAL CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

158 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Central Campus Long-Term Vision
Figure 124. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

C6
C2
C5 C7
C1 C4
C3 C8

C9 C10

M
on
tl
ak
e
PARRINGTON

Bl
vd
LAWN C11

N
E
C12

C13
15t
h

RED SQUARE
Av

C14
en
ue
NE

C18

RA
INI
C17
ER
VI S C15
TA
C16
ay
s W
en
ev
St

NE Pacific Street

Existing Building Central Campus Boundary

Potential Building Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 159
15t
Avh
en
ue
NE
PUBLIC REALM AND Paccar

CONNECTIVITY
Central Campus is characterized by major •• Build a new connection to East Campus
St
from the Husky Union Building (HUB) in 3 rd
organizational axes, significant open spaces, NE 4 TON
R IN G
and a multi-level pedestrian network the form of the East Campus Connection PAR AWN
L
interlaced with bikes and motor vehicle over NE Montlake Boulevard to the north
movement. The CMP proposes to: of the existing pedestrian bridge into what
is now the E-1 Parking Lot, and beyond into
•• Reinforce important connections and St
the Union Bay Natural Area. 2nd
NE 4
improves universal access by locating
buildings along major pedestrian •• Strengthen pedestrian connections across Odegaard
circulation paths. NE Pacific that extend to the waterfront.

•• Improve gateways into Central Campus •• Preserve and strengthen Rainier Vista and
as visual enhancements that signify other sightlines to Union Bay, Mt. Rainer
entries into the community, including and Portage Bay.
improved landscaping, signage, artwork, ay
w
or architectural features. Park
pus
C am
•• Enhance pedestrian connections through
Parrington Lawn to 15th Avenue NE, St
0 th
onto North Campus Housing, Population NE 4

Health, and on existing pedestrian bridges


over NE Pacific Street and NE Montlake
Boulevard.

160 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram
Figure 125. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
NORTH
CAMPUS
UNION BAY
HOUSING
NATURAL AREA

Art

Significant Pedestrian Path


LIBER AL
ARTS QU Significant Open Space
AD
Active Ground Floor

HUB Existing Building


Kane
Suzzalo Potential Building

Gateway

an e
mish L
Snoho
CSE

Molecular
Science

Bagley RA

NE
INI
ER

M
VI S

on
TA

tl a
ke
B lv
d
Life Sciences

NE Pacific Street

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 161
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Building Height
LR3 LR3 65’ C1-65

SM-U 85
Development sites throughout Central LR1 C2-65
Campus maintain the existing building
height limits and are concentrated along the
perimeter of the campus sector. Development
sites are concentrated:

SM-U 75-240
•• Between NE Stevens Way and NE Montlake 50’ 90’/80’
Boulevard to the east

•• Framing Memorial Way entrance at 45th


160’

NC3 P-65
•• Along Stevens Way to the south

130’
•• Along 15th Avenue NE south of the 40th
Street entrance

160’/
Most of the University’s historic building stock
is located in the heart of Central Campus.
New development shall respect the scale of
105’
the surrounding historic context and adhere
37’/30’
to established University policies regarding 240’
historic preservation.

200’ 65’
50’
160’
160’ 160’/ 130’
105’
105’ 200’ 65’
160’
37’/30’ 160’
240’
65’
105’
Figure 126. Central Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights Figure 127. Central Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

162 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Capacity
The development sites map and detailed
capacity figures are identified on pages 164 to
165.

•• The CMP identifies a total of roughly 2.7


million gross square feet of potential
development throughout Central Campus.

•• To achieve the long-term vision would


necessitate the replacement of roughly 1.1
million gross square feet of existing space,
resulting in a total net new development
area of 1.6 million gross square feet.

•• The CMP development limit for Central


Campus is 900,000 net new gross square
feet, a little over half of the projected
Central Campus growth capacity, or 15
percent of the total 6 million net new gross
square feet growth allowance. This allows
for flexibility in siting building projects over
time.

MIO-37/30 MIO-160/107

MIO-50 MIO-160/130

MIO-65 MIO-160

MIO-90/80 MIO-200

MIO-105 MIO-240

200’ Shoreline District


Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 163
* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites
** Gross square feet are accounted for within the 2003 Campus Master Plan
*** Total incorporates gross square feet that are already accounted for under the 2003 CMP
Table 9. Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet related to sites C5 and C6

TOTAL TOTAL CONDITIONED


PERCENT NET NEW APPROX# MAXIMUM EXISTING
SITE ENVELOPE MAXIMUM DEMO GROSS DOWN ACADEMIC
SITE NAME OF GROSS OF BLDG HT PARKING
ID GROSS GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILDING USES
ENVELOPE SQUARE FEET FLOORS LIMIT SPACES
SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET HEIGHTS

West of Memorial Way / N1


C1 290,000 200,000 69% 68,916 131,084 7 105 213 A/MU/T
Parking Lot
East of Memorial Way / N5
C2 265,000 135,000 51% 135,000 5 105 70 170 A/MU/T
Parking Lot

Mackenzie Replacement / N3
C3 165,000 145,000 88% 43,099 101,901 7 105 9 A/MU
Parking Lot

C4 Intellectual House Phase 2 40,000 5,000 13% 5,000 1 105 A/MU

North Campus Housing 1


C5 170,000 110,000 65% 110,000 5 105 A/H
(Building A)**/***
North Campus Housing 2
C6 (Building E) / Haggett Hall Site 535,000 290,000 54% 206,114 83,886 6 160 77 A/H
/ N9, 10, 11 Parking Lots **/***

McMahon Hall Site / N13, 14, 15


C7 600,000 400,000 67% 288,352 111,648 11 160 177 A/MU/H/T
Parking Lots

Padelford Garage North Site /


C8 315,000 245,000 78% 138,555 106,445 8 105 217* A/MU/T
N16, 18, 20, 21*

C9 Padelford Hall South Site* 185,000 155,000 84% 155,000 8 105 217* A/MU/T

C10 Padelford Garage South Site* 230,000 145,000 63% 145,000 7 105 218* A/MU/T

Facility Services Admin Bldg /


C11 University Facilities Bldg and 120,000 85,000 71% 20,125 64,875 7 105 A/MU/T
Annex 1
Plant Op Annexes 2-6 /
C12 University Facilities Annex 2 / 230,000 115,000 50% 18,860 96,140 6 105 1 A/MU/T
C23 Parking Lot

C13 Sieg Hall Replacement 145,000 130,000 90% 57,180 72,820 7 105 A/MU

Mechanical Eng / Eng Annex /


C14 300,000 215,000 72% 125,896 89,104 8 105 23 A/MU
C15 Parking Lot
Wilcox / Wilson Ceramics Lab
C15 90,000 60,000 67% 50,328 9,672 4 65 56 A/MU
Site / Wilson Annex

C16 Benson Hall / C7 Parking Lot 320,000 210,000 66% 76,271 133,729 7 105 11 A/MU

C17 Chem Library Site 130,000 85,000 65% 39,363 45,637 7 105 A/MU

C18 South of Henry Art Gallery 70,000 35,000 50% 35,000 4 105 A/MU

TOTAL - CENTRAL*** 4,200,000 2,765,000 64% 1,133,059 1,631,941 1,389

Academic General Uses: A - Academic; H - Housing; MU - Mixed Use; T - Transportation; OS - Open Space; IP - Industry Partnership/Manufacturing; ACC - Academic Conference Center
“Maximum Building Height Limit” refers to the height limit allowed under the MIO zoning height.

164 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Sites
C1 C2 Figure 128. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

C5
C3 C6
C4

C7
15th Avenue NE

C8

Blvd
lake
C9

M o nt
C10

C18
C11
C13
C12

C17
C14
C16

Steve
n s Way
NE
Pa
c ifi
c
St
r
C15
ee
t

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 165
ZONE D

Central Campus Design Guidance ZONE E


Design guidance related to the seven
development zones throughout Central
Campus is provided on the following pages.
ZONE B

ZONE A

ZONE ZONE C
G

ZONE F

Figure 129. Central Campus Development Zones

166 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE A
Figure 130. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Make Red Square more
inviting

Improve universal access

M
connections to Red Square

em
Universal access connections

or
ia
to Red Square from Memorial

lW
ay
Way and Campus Parkway

N
E
Kane

NE Suzzallo Allen
Ln
on
ng t
shi
Wa
rg e
Geo Odegaard

RED SQUARE

St Henry Art Gerberding


41st Gallery Protect and enhance Mt.
NE
Rainier view corridor and
universal access
Meany

C18
W
St
e
ve
ns
W
ay
NE
15t

Enhance gateway at NE 40th Street;


hA

activate and frame street edges


ve
NE

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 167
DEVELOPMENT ZONE B
Figure 131. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only Formally front and
address Denny Yard

Respect historic adjacencies and Enhance pedestrian connections


comply with the guidelines on historic to North Campus Housing along
preservation on pages 153 to 155 Stevens Way and NE Chelan Lane
Memo
rial W

Preserve Liberal Arts Quad’s


cherry trees and enhance
a y NE

universal access of pathways

Business
School C3 Art
Complex
E
dN
Clark ill eR
O re
Music nd
Denny
Pe
Raitt

DENNY YARD
Miller
Preserve
Denny Yard LIBERAL ARTS Communications
QUAD St
e ve
ns
W
Savery ay
Thomson NE
Smith
E
N
Ln
n
to
ng

GRIEG
hi

Sp o Gowen GARDEN
as

kan
W

e L an
eN
ge

E Legend
or
Ge

Improve universal access


within and throughout Existing UW Building
Denny Yard Potential Building

Building Envelope
Improve multi-modal use Significant Open Space
of Skagit Lane

168 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE C
Figure 132. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Activate public realm with


building entrances along Opportunity for “science quad” open
Stevens Way and Thurston Lane space that unifies and celebrates
Enhance pedestrian
Drumheller Fountain and vicinity and
connections between
connects engineering facilities
Rainier Vista and
Hitchcock overpass
Molecular Eng.
and Sci.

C17
Johnson
Atmosph. Sci.
C16 Geophysics Mary Gates yN E
s Wa
eve n
E St
Bagley

C13
Husky Union
Chemistry
Building
Guggenheim
Electrical Kirsten
Engineering
Aerosp.
Rsrch
Paul G. Allen Ctr for
A
ST

Comp. Sci. and Eng.


VI
R

D
IE
IN

E
RA

Preserve mature
street trees along
Stevens Way B
A
Protect and enhance
Rainier Vista landscape and G C
Respect adjacency to universal access
Medicinal Herb Garden
F

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 169
DEVELOPMENT ZONE D
Figure 133. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Respect historic setting for observatory


to comply with historic preservation
Maintain access to
guidelines, pages 153 through 155
Hughes Penthouse
Theater

Contribute to the development of the Burke


Court and pedestrian environment
NE
45

Parrington
th
St

Cunningham
N E
GTO
C2
N
R IN Ave
PAR AWN 15th
L

William H. Gates
o ri a
l C1
Mem
Way

New Burke Museum Minimize/reduce barriers


along 15th Avenue NE to
create a welcoming campus
edge
Respect and enhance
Memorial Way as a
ceremonial entry and WWI
Memorial Legend

Enhance pedestrian connections Existing UW Building


into campus from surrounding
Potential Building
urban fabric, addressing this as
a new major gateway from the Building Envelope
future Sound Transit station
Significant Open Space

170 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE E
Figure 134. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Activate the public realm by locating NE


45
entry plazas and building entrances along th
St Locate service access away from
Stevens Way and major pedestrian paths high-volume pedestrian areas
Hansee
Enhance pedestrian and bike
connections and experience
along Pend Oreille

C5 Enhance campus gateway


landscape to celebrate Pend
Oreille function as a major
Respect surrounding campus entrance
buildings and preserve C4
sightlines to the water North
Physics Lab

C7 C6 ve
NE
thA
25
Incorporate universal
access through buildings d NE
on steep slopes reille R
Pend O
C9 C8
Hall
Health

sW
ay N
E
C10
n
eve UW Club
E St
E
D
Rd N
Ma son E
Fluke
B
Maintain and enhance
the wooded character A
of the east slope and
Strive to incorporate
experiential landscape
parking into topography
quality of the Burke- G C
Gilman Trail
NE Minimize and improve
B l vd
M o nt
lake points of conflict at
Facilitate connections between East and
F
major crossing of the
Central Campus
Burke-Gilman Trail

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 171
DEVELOPMENT ZONE F
Figure 135. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Activate the public realm by locating
building entrances along Stevens Way and
Preserve mature tree major pedestrian paths
canopy along Stevens Way
ay
s W
n
e ve
St
E
Protect Rainier Vista
view corridor
c St
acifi

C11
Eng. Libr.
NE P

C1 C1
4 Loew
2
Anderson.
Bloedel
NE
l vd
eB
l ak
Winken.
M o nt
Power Plant
More
A
ST
VI

Roberts
R
IE
IN
RA

C15
Incorporate parking into
topography

Improve points of conflict at major


crossings of the Burke-Gilman Trail and
Enhance connections enhance pedestrian and bike experience
between Central and
East Campus
Legend

Existing UW Building
Preserve existing
Potential Building
mature trees along
Mason Road Building Envelope

Significant Open Space

172 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE G
Figure 136. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Building heights need to be sensitive to the


daylighting needs of the sundial mounted on the Preserve character and quality
south face of the Physics-Astronomy Tower, and the of landscape around bus stops,
Improve campus gateway Life Sciences Building greenhouses which are public art pieces
experience and quality
Maintain and preserve
mature canopy along
Minimize shadows on Stevens Way
existing buildings and
open spaces

W St
eve n
s Wa
y NE

Architecture Life Sciences

Guthrie

Kincaid
15th Physics/
Av e NE Astronomy
Auditorium

Tower

D
E
Facilitate universal access
and connections between
B
West and Central Campus Facilitate connections
cS
t between the Burke-Gilman A
15

ifi
th

ac Trail and the waterfront


EP
Av

N
G C
e
NE

Activate the public realm along 15th


Avenue through strategic building
entrances and/or destination public uses;
F
integrate ADA access to Central Campus

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 173
NE 45th St

MEMORIAL
GATEWAY Hansee Hall
Burke
Museum
Hughes

Stevens Way DENNY FIELD


North
Hutchinson Physics Lab
William H.

Memorial Way
Gates
Paccar Dempsey

Rd
ill e
Lewis

O re
d
Denny Hall

Pen
Art
PARRINGTON
LAWN DENNY YARD Raitt

Music Clark
Parrington LIBERAL
15th Ave NE

ARTS QUAD
Miller
Savery
Comm.
Henry

Whitman Ct NE
Kane Smith
Art Odegaard Thomson
Gowen GRIEG
GARDEN Hall
RED
Health
SQUARE
Meany Suzzallo Library Fluke

Road
UW
Ste Club
ven Allen Husky Union
Gerberding

M ason
sW
ay Building
Mary
Gates

E
Engineering

lvd N
Molecular
Johnson Library
Eng.
Guggenheim

lake B
Loew
Guthrie

M o nt
Physics/ Power
Electrical
Astronomy Plant
Bagley Engineering
Computer
Science and
Chemistry Engineering
CSE 2
Kincaid

Life Sciences
NE Roberts
Pa Anderson
c ifi
cS Winkenwerder
t
Bloedel

174 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Central Campus Development
Standards and Design Guidance

Figure 137. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Mid-block Corridor

View Corridor

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Gateway

Active Edge

Significant Open Space

Forested Edge

Priority Pedestrian Connector

Shared Street

Streetscape Improvements

Service Access

Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 175
WEST
CAMPUS
Figure 138. West Campus Existing Aerial, 2016 West Campus Key Map

10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN


West Campus is the most urban of the four campus
sectors and accommodates a range of uses including
student housing, academic, research, and cultural
programs. Given its regional transportation access from
I-5, transit services, retail, research in numerous fields,
as well as cafes, industry and a significant supply of
student housing, West Campus is uniquely positioned
to become an innovation district within the broader
Seattle region. The 10-year conceptual plan for West
Campus is designed to:

•• Balance dense development with access to open


space.

•• Structure proposed development around a new


proposed green, which shall function as the heart of
the district.

•• Activate ground floor functions.

•• Extend and re-establish the street grid, while


improving pedestrian connections to South and
Central Campus.

•• Provide flexible building footprints and massing


to accommodate a range of functions, including
academic and research partnerships.

•• Connect the University District to the waterfront.

Figure 139. WEST CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

176 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
West Campus Long-Term Vision
Figure 140. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

W19

W21 W20
W22 W28

W26

W24 W25
W27

15
th
Av
W23

en
ue
N
E
RE
W29 EDE
W30 BELV
W37 ZA
PL A

W35
W34
W31
NE Pac
ific Stre
W32
et W36

S
M PU
E S T CA
W EN
GRE
W33
ge

CIT Y OF
PORTAG SEATTLE
ri d

E BAY P
yB

AR K
r sit
ive
Un

Existing Building West Campus Boundary

Potential Building 200’ Shoreline District


Overlay 30ft
Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 177
PUBLIC REALM AND
CONNECTIVITY
The quality of the public realm varies •• Introduce new east-west connections
throughout West Campus. Campus Parkway between West and South Campus along
provides an example of a streetscape that NE Skamania Lane and Boat Street and to
integrates open space and programmatic Central Campus along NE 40th Street, NE
amenities with high levels of transparency, Campus Parkway, and a new pedestrian
creating an active and desirable public realm. path south of Gould Hall that link to
New student housing has improved the University Way.
pedestrian realm along the exterior Campus
Parkway sidewalks. Other areas remain •• Activate ground floors along major
underdeveloped and grittier in character. Urban pedestrian routes with public destinations
development around a traditional street grid, a including Brooklyn Avenue and Campus
defining feature of West Campus, has not been Parkway.
accompanied with integrated open space.

The long-term future of West Campus is


n
envisioned with a rich new open space network catio
Publi ices
r v
that reinforces its diverse urban context and Hall Se
B en
enhances the pedestrian experience throughout
the area.

In West Campus, the CMP proposes to:

•• Strengthen north-south pedestrian


connections to the waterfront and the
City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park from
the University District, and complete the
continuous waterfront trail along the
campus edge. 11th and 12th Avenues are
extended as shared street corridors through
redeveloped Stevens Court sites toward the
West Campus Green.

178 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Br
oo
Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

kly
12
t
11t

nA
hA
Figure 141. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
h

ve
ve
Av

N
eN

E
E

ay
a rk w
am pus P
Poplar NE C Significant Pedestrian Path
Elm
Significant Open Space
t
0 th S Active Ground Floor
Alder NE 4
Existing Building

Gould Potential Building


Maple
Relocate Existing Uses
ECC Police
Gateway

Potential Street Vacation


WCUP

BELVEDERE
Mercer Cour t
PLAZA

Burke-Gilm
an Trail

Jo

ries
hn

Pacific St Fishe
M

re et
.W
al
la

NE Skam
ania Lan
ce

S
M PU e
T CA
WE S E E N
GR
rin e
s Ma ies
e ri e Stu
d
F ish hin g
a c
Te earch
Res nter
Ce

CITY OF SEATTL SAKUMA Boa


E Co t St
PORTAGE BAY PA n ti
nu o re e
RK us t
Wa
te r
fr o
n t Tr
ail

Boat Street is
not changed by
this CMP

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 179
West Campus Green and Plaza
Under the Long-Term Vision, West Campus development and small pavilion spaces with
is anchored by the new West Campus Green amenities for park visitors. A plaza at the
(north of Boat Street), which seamlessly north end of the Green atop a stepped terrace
integrates with the City of Seattle’s new would provide a venue to highlight University
Portage Bay Park (south of Boat Street). activities and contributions through activated
The combined open spaces would provide ground floor uses.
seven acres of open space bordered by new

Figure 142. West Campus existing bird’s eye view (above) and Figure 143.
Illustrative rendering of the West Campus Green (opposite)

180 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
West Campus Green
Figure 143. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Brooklyn Av
Fisheries PLAZA

enue
WEST CAMPUS GREEN

B o at
Stre
e t

CIT Y
PORT OF SEATT
AGE L
BAY P E
AR K

SAKUM
A VIEW
POINT AGUA VERDE

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 181
Brooklyn Avenue
A lively and vital pedestrian environment is Accordingly, the City has published a draft
the vision for the West Campus public realm. University District Green Streets Concept Plan
The West Campus Green to the south and that articulates a design intention for each
University District light rail station to the north street, and recommends materials for paving,
shall increase pedestrian traffic along Brooklyn planting, and furnishings. The provisions of the
Avenue and other north-south connectors. Concept Plan are voluntary. However, for the
segments of Brooklyn Avenue NE, 43rd Street,
Brooklyn Avenue is envisioned as a street with and NE 42nd Street within the University’s
active ground floor functions, high levels of MIO, the University shall strive to follow the
transparency, landscape and streetscape guidance provided in the Concept Plan for
improvements to promote safe and inviting any improvements to those streets in order to
movement. The City of Seattle has designated provide a cohesive pedestrian environment.
Brooklyn Avenue NE, 43rd Street, and NE The draft Concept Plan is included in this CMP
42nd Street neighborhood green streets. as an appendix on page 300.

ral Center
Ethnic Cultu

Figure 144. Existing view of Brooklyn Avenue looking south toward the waterfront (above) and Figure 145.
rendering of Brooklyn Avenue at NE 40th Street (opposite). Right-of-way of Brooklyn Avenue does not change
and will accommodate service vehicles and trucks.
182 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Brooklyn Avenue
Figure 145. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

UR AL CENTER
ETHNIC CULT

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 183
15th Avenue NE re et
St
•• Introduction of a street level plaza at NE th
The 15th Avenue corridor runs north-south 4 5
NE
between Central and West Campuses. 42nd Street improves universal access to
The CMP re-imagines 15th Avenue as an Parrington Lawn and welcomes visitors. 15t
h
activated pedestrian-oriented street with Av
en
enhanced streetscapes and increased access •• NE 42nd and 43rd are designated as ue
NE
Ne
between campus sectors, while retaining its “Green Streets”. w
Bu
rke
functionality as a transit corridor. Specific Mu
•• Active edges may be located along 15th se u
m
recommendations include the following:
Avenue.
•• Enhanced planting, lighting, and Ga
t
•• Pedestrian bridge overpass across 15th
furnishings, and removal of retaining walls
Avenue NE is improved and integrated with
improves the permeability of the campus,
new development or relocated to maintain
notably at Parrington Lawn, NE 43rd
and enhance universal access.
Street, and the development site south of
the 40th Street Gateway. •• Population Health building replaces
concrete wall with active transparent
•• The new Burke Museum activates the
destination spaces and pedestrian
street edge, and locates an entrance at NE t
connections and improved open spaces tr
ee
43rd Street. dS
behind Architecture Hall. 43
r
NE

t
r ee
St
n d
42
NE
Figure 146. Former retaining wall along NE 15th Avenue at NE 43rd Street, removed north of 43rd by the New Burke Museum

t
r ee
St
s t
41
E
N

Figure 147. Rendering of proposed Burke Museum at the corner of 15th Avenue NE and NE 43rd Street (Source: Olson Kundig)
184 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Transformation of 15th Avenue NE
Figure 148. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Me
mo
ri a
lW
ay

Significant Pedestrian Path


te s
Significant Open Space
PARRINGTON LAWN Active Ground Floor

Existing Building

Potential Building
RED SQUARE
Gateway

View Corridor

He
nr y
Ar t
Ga
ll e r
y

Ste
ven
sW
ay

Pop
al ul a
tr ti o
e n in g nH
e al
C k th
To Par Bu
il di
ng

Go
ul d

t Ph
A s t ys i c s
Pol ro m /
ay
ay s

ic ony
ew p u

e
kw
at m

r
Pa
G Ca

s 15t
h
pu
To

Av
en
am ue
NE
C
t
ree
St

ee t
c Str
th

fi
Paci
40

Un
ive
E

r si
N

ty
Wa
y
Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 185
SM-U
75-
NC3 240
SM-U/R 75-
P-65
240 (M1)

SM-U 75-240
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Building Height SM-U
Surface parking lots and underdeveloped MR (M1) 75-240 65’
parcels provide West Campus with significant
redevelopment potential.

New building height limits in West Campus


relate to the adjacent zoning in the University
District. Building height limits step down 240’ 105’
toward the waterfront to allow waterfront 160’/ 130’
views and access to light and air.

200’
200’

160’
160’/ 130’
105’
37’/30’
65’
200’
65’
50’
37’
105’ 105’

Figure 149. West Campus 2003 CMP Existing Building Figure 150. West Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights
Heights

186 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Capacity
The development sites map and detailed
capacity figures are identified on pages 188 to
189.

•• The CMP identifies a total of roughly 4.5


million gross square feet of potential
development throughout West Campus.

•• To achieve the long-term vision would


necessitate the replacement of roughly
800,000 gross square feet of existing
space, resulting in a total net new
development area of 3.7 million gross
square feet.

•• The CMP development limit for West


Campus is 3.0 million net new gross square
feet, about 80 percent of the full West
Campus growth capacity, or 50 percent of
the total 6.0 million net new gross square
feet growth allowance.

MIO-37/30 MIO-160/107

MIO-50 MIO-160/130

MIO-65 MIO-160

MIO-90/80 MIO-200

MIO-105 MIO-240

200’ Shoreline District


Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 187
* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites
Table 10. West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

TOTAL TOTAL CONDITIONED


PERCENT NET NEW APPROX# MAXIMUM EXISTING
SITE ENVELOPE MAXIMUM DEMO GROSS DOWN ACADEMIC
SITE NAME OF GROSS OF BLDG HT PARKING
ID GROSS GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILDING USES
ENVELOPE SQUARE FEET FLOORS LIMIT SPACES
SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET HEIGHTS

W19 Schmitz Hall Site 575,000 365,000 64% 99,691 265,309 17 240 A/MU/T/IP

W20 Staff / HR Building Site 105,000 40,000 35% 10,831 29,169 6 240 90 A/MU

W21 Condon Hall Site 615,000 390,000 63% 132,533 257,467 17 240 A/MU/T/IP

W22 W41 Parking Lot Site 315,000 175,000 56% 175,000 17 240 37 A/MU/T/IP

W42 Parking Lot / Henderson


W23 430,000 345,000 79% 106,340 238,660 17 240 10 A/MU/IP
Hall Site

W24 W10 Parking Lot 690,000 405,000 58% 405,000 17 240 90 A/MU/T/IP

Child Care / Brooklyn Trail /SW


W25 845,000 375,000 44% 23,497 351,503 17 240 15 A/MU/T/IP
Maintenance / W11 Parking Lot
CDC / Ethnic Cultural Center
W26 680,000 390,000 57% 32,999 357,001 17 240 A/MU/T/IP
Theater Site
Purchasing Accounting / W12,
W27 490,000 340,000 69% 39,576 300,424 14 200 96 A/MU/T/IP
13 Parking Lots
West of Commodore Duchess
W28 110,000 40,000 35% 40,000 6 240 90 A/MU/IP
Site
Stevens Court East (A, B, C, H)
W29 320,000 205,000 64% 79,104 125,896 9 160 130 81 A/MU/T/IP
/ W29 Parking Lot
Stevens Court West (D, J, K, L,
W30 820,000 425,000 51% 138,340 286,660 14 200 200 42 A/MU/T/IP
M) / W32, 33 Parking Lots

W31 W35 Parking Lot Site Pavilion 105,000 20,000 18% 20,000 2 160 130 78 A/MU/IP

Wallace Hall Pavilion / Marine


W32 Studies / Fish Teaching and 80,000 15,000 18% 96,546 -81,546 2 160 130 A/MU/IP
Research
Ocean Research 2 / NOAA /
W33 345,000 235,000 68% 11,267 223,733 14 160 130 69 A/MU/IP
W24, 28 Parking Lots

W34 Portage Bay Parking Garage 410,000 230,000 56% 230,000 14 160 130 895 MU/T/IP

University Transportation
W35 370,000 225,000 60% 225,000 14 160 130 30 A/MU/IP
Center

W36 Fisheries Parking Lot (PUDA) 100,000 90,000 86% 90,000 9 160 130 A/MU/T/IP

Northlake Building / W40


W37 455,000 245,000 53% 22,077 222,923 14 160 130 34 A/MU/T/IP
Parking Lot Site

TOTAL - WEST 7,860,000 4,555,000 55% 792,801 3,762,199 1,477

Academic General Uses: A - Academic; H - Housing; MU - Mixed Use; T - Transportation; OS - Open Space; IP - Industry Partnership/Manufacturing; ACC - Academic Conference Center
“Maximum Building Height Limit” refers to the height limit allowed under the MIO zoning height.

188 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Sites

Brooklyn Avenue NE
Figure 151. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Roosevelt Way NE

NE
ue
en
Avh
11t
W22 W21 W19
W20
Campus Parkway

W28

W23
W37 W24 W26
W25
W27

University Way NE
W30

12th Avenue NE
11th Avenue NE

15th Avenue NE
W29
e
dg

W36 W31
B ri
ty
rsi

W34
ive
Un

NE
W32 Pa
c

Brooklyn Avenue NE
W35
ifi
c
St
r ee
t

NE
ue
W33

en
Av
th
15

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 189
West Campus Design Guidance
Design guidance related to the four
ZONE H
development zones throughout West Campus
is provided on the following pages. ZONE K

ZONE I

ZONE J

Figure 152. West Campus Development Zones

190 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE H
Figure 153. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Promote variation and modulation


in façades with second upper level Improve ADA access between
setbacks on Campus Parkway and Campus Parkway and Meany Plaza
University Way along pedestrian bridge, and from
Meany Plaza to Red Square

Large floorplates may


Eagleson
explore strategies for Create enhanced So Activate ground floor
bringing in natural light Sp cia uses on Campus Parkway
pedestrian connections He e e c l W
between NE 41st and ar h a o rk and University Way
in
g nd /
Campus Parkway
W19

Poplar

Cedar
W20
Elm
Commodore

W22 W21 W28 Duchess


Roo

15
s

Alder
eve

th
Av
lt W

e
NE
ay

U
Lander ni
st St ve
NE 41 rs
it y
W
ay
Maple N
wy E
p u s Pk

Br
C am

oo
kl
yn
Av
Terry

e
12

NE
th

H
Av
e

K
NE

I
11t
hA
ve

J
NE

NE 40th St
Continue to enhance pedestrian experience, public realm,
and street character along Campus Parkway with generous
sidewalks, street trees and adjacency of public/active
spaces, similar to development in front of residence halls.
Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 191
DEVELOPMENT ZONE I
Figure 154. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Reinforce Brooklyn Avenue as an
active corridor with public-facing
ground floor uses
Activate building edge along
Space towers to allow Burke-Gilman Trail and adhere
ample light and air to the 20’ trail setback

Improve pedestrian
Orient towers to minimize connection south of
shadows on existing streets and W26 Gould Hall
buildings
Gould

W25
UWPD
W24 W27
UWCUP
West
Receiving
W23 W29
W30
Station
t Burke-Gilman
0th Stree Trail
NE 4
DERE
PL A Z A BELVE
Mercer Court Apartments

Un

e NE
i ve
rs

Av
Br

it y
oo

15th
W
kl

ay
yn

NE
Av
e
12

NE
Enhance open space to
th
Av improve access and use
e
NE Pacific St
NE
11t
ge

hA

Legend
B ri d

ve
NE
it y

Improve quality of the public realm Existing UW Building


ve r s

Create accessible green open spaces


and increase light filtration to street
Un i

connected to Burke-Gilman Trail Potential Building


level through podiums
on either side of Brooklyn north of Building Envelope
Design 11th and 12th as shared Pacific with adjacent active ground
Significant Open Space
streets that prioritize pedestrian and floor uses
bike movement and limit vehicular Existing Uses Relocated
access 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

192 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Establish street wall and active public DEVELOPMENT ZONE J
destinations to improve scale and Figure 155. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
pedestrian experience along both sides
of Brooklyn Avenue, the major north- Step buildings to increase views to water
south pedestrian corridor and minimize shadows on surrounding
buildings
Buildings to be 15
th
designed as pavilions Av
e
N
within the green E

W35

Br
oo
W34

kl
yn
Av
e
N
E
1 W
W3 32 Respect 30’
W33 building height

Jo
hn
limit within the

M
Fishery

.W
Sciences

al
200’ Shoreline

la
ce
W3 District Overlay
NE Pacific St
6 e
rin
M a die s
s
ri e Stu
he g
F is chin
h
Tea earc
s
Re nter
Ce
Boat St
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN Agua
Verde

CITY OF SEATTLE
PORTAGE BAY PARK

Develop Brooklyn as a vibrant


pedestrian street with bicycle H
connections to the waterfront and K
Connect new Enhance courtyard space mid-block connections east-west I
development to the as a functional landscape,
waterfront trail and parks providing sense of privacy Create a flexible and
to building users multi-purpose open space
J
complementing and extending the
City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 193
DEVELOPMENT ZONE K
Figure 156. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only Buildings with large floorplates
may explore strategies for
bringing in natural light

Retain and enhance wooded character


of the Burke-Gilman Trail and Respect the 20’ setback from
provide building connections that the Burke-Gilman Trail
accommodate universal access with
minimal disturbance

an Tra
il W37
-Gilm
Burke
Publication Services

Benjamin D. Hall
t
hS Interdisciplinary Research
40 t
NE
NE Northlake Pl

Unive
NE Pacific St

ay

rsit y
la ke W
N or th
NE

Bridg
e
Improve street character and Consistent podium heights and
pedestrian safety along NE setbacks allow for pedestrian-
Northlake Place and Burke- scale daylight and views Legend
Gilman Trail
Existing UW Building

Potential Building

Building Envelope

Significant Open Space

Existing Uses Relocated

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

194 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
West Campus

University Way NE
Development Standards

Brooklyn Ave NE
and Design Guidance
Social Figure 157. Graphics are for
Work
Illustrative Purposes Only
Cedar
Apartments

Elm Poplar Play


House

Lander Alder
Terry Maple

Commodore
Duchess
Benjamin Publication
Hall Service
Ethnic
e

Cultural
id g

Center
Br

Gould
ty
rsi
ive

NE Northlake Way
Un

Mercer Court

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Mid-block Corridor

View Corridor
West
200’ Shoreline District Overlay Receiving
Station
Fishery
Sciences
DESIGN GUIDANCE

Gateway

Active Edge

Significant Open Space


William H.
Forested Edge Foege

Priority Pedestrian Connector City of Seattle


Portage Bay Park
Shared Street

Streetscape Improvements

Service Access

Potential Parking Access


Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 195
SOUTH
CAMPUS
10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN Figure 158. South Campus Existing Aerial, 2016 South Campus Key Map

South Campus supports UW’s Health Sciences


functions and the Medical Center. It is home to
academic, research, and clinical functions for six P

health sciences schools and assorted environmental


and natural settings, along a continuous waterfront
that is largely accessible. Its monolithic structure is
dense and disorienting both inside and out.

In South Campus, the CMP proposes the


redevelopment of much of the health sciences
complex incrementally over time to:

•• Increase development capacity, and create a


state-of-the-art health sciences complex and
academic medical center.

•• Create an inviting, functional and attractive public


realm.

•• Reduce the monolithic character of development


in a manner that promotes school identity,
orientation and connectivity.

•• Leverage and celebrate its prime location on


the waterfront with a shared campus green,
continuous waterfront trail, courtyards and upper
terraces.

•• Improve access to West, Central, and East Campus


through enhanced pedestrian connections and a
continuous waterfront trail.

Figure 159. SOUTH CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative
Purposes Only
196 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
South Campus Long-Term Vision
Figure 160. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

M
on
tl a
ke
RA

B
INI

lvd
ER
VI S
TA

Pacific Street
S39 S42 S43
S38 S40 S44 S56
S41
BAY VISTA

S46 S47 S57


S48
S45
PORTAGE

S49
S50 S52 NE Columbia Rd

S54
AIL
T TR
S51 SOUTH CAMPUS ON
GREEN TE R FR
WA
S53 O US
S55 NU
NTI
CO

Existing Building South Campus Boundary

Potential Building 200’ Shoreline District


Overlay
Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 197
15t
h
Ave
N E
PUBLIC REALM AND
CONNECTIVITY Burke-Gilman Trail
The public realm for South Campus is PLAZA
re e t
c St
envisioned as a highly connected, porous and NE P
acifi
active environment.

B ro o
klyn
•• Transparent facades define edges of major Foege

Ave
pedestrian and vehicular streets, create

nu
an active public realm and improve safety
e

e
while preserving the privacy of research Lan
nia
am a
and academic spaces above. N E Sk
PORTAGE BAY
VISTA
•• The South Campus Green serves as the
WEST CAMPUS
significant outdoor open space and GREEN K Wing
gathering area for the UW and broader
community. Ocean Scie
nces

•• East-west connections along Skamania


Lane and the continuous waterfront trail
improve universal access and link the West
Campus Green, Portage Bay Vista, the
South Campus Green and the Glade.

•• North-south connections including


the Upper Green and smaller scale
parcelization through specific development
sites throughout South Campus provide
porosity, and enhance physical and provide Marin
visual connections from upper campus e Scie
n ce s
sectors to the waterfront.

•• Parking and service access are located


away from or beneath significant new or
enhanced landscape spaces.

•• Enhanced landscape, active ground floor


uses, and open space connections improve
the quality of the pedestrian experience
along Pacific Street.

198 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram
Figure 161. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Mo
ntl
ake
B lv
d
Significant Pedestrian Path

Significant Open Space

Active Ground Floor

Existing Building

Potential Building

Gateway

H Wing

UWMC Surgery
Pavilion

Montlake
Tower

GLADE

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

A IL
RO NT TR
ATERF
IN U O US W
CONT

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 199
Pedestrian Crossings
The CMP proposes to enhance and expand
connections among South, Central, and West
Campuses, and the waterfront. The primary
pedestrian crossing would extend into the
South Campus Green, and include active uses
on the lower levels and afford views of the
waterfront.

Figure 162. Existing pedestrian bridge to Magnuson Health Sciences Center (above) and rendering
of view to Portage Bay along the South Campus Green (opposite)

200 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Pedestrian Crossing over Pacific Street
Figure 163. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 201
160’
160/130’ 105’
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Building Height
•• Increased height and density throughout
South Campus allows for more area to be
dedicated to open space. 200’ 65’
•• The parcelization of development reduces
the monolithic nature of the health
sciences complex today, enhances visual
and physical connections between Central
Campus and the waterfront, and improves
overall organizational clarity and legibility
240’
and individual identities of the health
sciences schools and Medical Center area. 105’
•• Building masses are oriented north-south
37’/30’
to increase light and reduce shadows on
other buildings.
50’
•• Building heights step down toward the
shoreline and increase views from buildings
to the water.

•• New development south of NE Columbia


Road has a maximum development height
of 105 feet; any structures within the Figure 164. South Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building
Shoreline District Overlay are limited to 30 Heights
feet

•• Buildings along the shoreline are scaled to


maximize light and minimize shadows on 105’
the South Campus Green.

65’ 240’
50’
Figure 165. South Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights

202 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Capacity
The development sites map and detailed
capacity figures are identified on pages 204 to
205.

•• The CMP identifies a total of roughly 5.0


million gross square feet of potential
development throughout South Campus.

•• To achieve the long-term vision would


necessitate the replacement of roughly 2.8
million gross square feet of existing space,
resulting in a total net new development
area of 2.2 million gross square feet.

•• The CMP development limit for South


Campus is 1.35 million net new gross
square feet, about 61 percent of the South
Campus growth capacity, or 23 percent of
the total 6.0 million net new gross square
feet growth allowance. This allows for
flexibility in siting building projects.

MIO-37/30 MIO-160/107

MIO-50 MIO-160/130

MIO-65 MIO-160

MIO-90/80 MIO-200

MIO-105 MIO-240

200’ Shoreline District


Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 203
*The potential number of new parking spaces for South Campus. Specific parking spaces
per development site have not been identified, since the proposed parking is designed as a
Table 11. South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet contiguous podium.

TOTAL TOTAL CONDITIONED


PERCENT NET NEW APPROX# MAXIMUM EXISTING
SITE ENVELOPE MAXIMUM DEMO GROSS DOWN ACADEMIC
SITE NAME OF GROSS OF BLDG HT PARKING
ID GROSS GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILDING USES
ENVELOPE SQUARE FEET FLOORS LIMIT SPACES
SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET HEIGHTS

S38 SCSII B 370,000 160,000 43% 160,000 7 200 A/MU

S39 SCSII C / Hitchcock Hall Site 280,000 270,000 96% 116,416 153,584 17 200 A/MU

S40 SCSII D / J Wing 580,000 425,000 73% 170,719 254,281 11 200 A/MU/T

S41 SCSII E / I Wing and G Wing 685,000 280,000 41% 215,620 64,380 7 200 A/MU

S42 SCSII F / T Wing 500,000 340,000 68% 493,496 -153,496 17 240 A/MU

S43 SCSII G / A Wing and C Wing 375,000 320,000 85% 101,489 218,511 17 240 A/MU

S44 SCSII H 385,000 310,000 81% 310,000 17 240 A/MU

S45 SCSII I / F Wing 340,000 165,000 49% 122,767 42,233 3 200 A/MU

S46 SCSII J / D Wing 275,000 245,000 89% 183,975 61,025 14 200 A/MU

S47 SCSII K / B Wing 525,000 345,000 66% 117,619 227,381 14 200 A/MU

SCSII L / RR Wing, BB Wing,


S48 520,000 415,000 80% 454,692 -39,692 3 200 A/MU
SW Wing
SCSII M / Ocean Teaching / S5,
S49 100,000 100,000 100% 51,552 48,448 8 105 7 A/MU
S6 Parking Lot

S50 SCSII N / S1 Parking Garage 385,000 260,000 68% 260,000 6 105 805 A/MU

SCSII O / Harris Hydraulics Lab


S51 / South Campus Center / S7, 30,000 20,000 67% 92,785 -72,785 2 37 30 6 A/MU
S12 Parking Lot

S52 SCSII P 425,000 275,000 65% 275,000 6 105 A/MU

SCSII Q / Portage Bay Building


S53 / Oceanography Bldg, Dock, 60,000 40,000 67% 128,712 -88,712 2 37 30 24 A/MU
and Shed / S8 Parking Lot
SCSII R / CHDD Clinic and
S54 440,000 350,000 80% 115,943 234,057 7 105 4 A/MU
School / S9 Parking Lot

S55 SCSII S / CHDD South Building 35,000 25,000 71% 12,378 12,622 2 37 30 A/MU

S56 SCSII T / NN Wing 385,000 280,000 73% 122,217 157,783 15 240 A/MU

S57 SCSII U / EA Wing and EB Wing 430,000 360,000 84% 275,885 84,115 16 240 A/MU

TOTAL - SOUTH 7,125,000 4,985,000 72% 2,776,265 2,208,735 846

Academic General Uses: A - Academic; H - Housing; MU - Mixed Use; T - Transportation; OS - Open Space; IP - Industry Partnership/Manufacturing; ACC - Academic Conference Center
“Maximum Building Height Limit” refers to the height limit allowed under the MIO zoning height.

204 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Sites
Figure 166. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

NE
ue
en
Av
th
15 S38
S39
NE
Pa
c
S40 ifi
c
St
r ee
t

S41

S49
NE
Co
lu S45 S42
m
bi
a
Ro
a d
S43
S50 S46
S44
S51 S47
S56
S52 S48

S57
S53

Montlake Blvd
S54
S55

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 205
South Campus Design Guidance
Design guidance related to the single
development zone for South Campus is
provided on the following pages.

ZONE L

Figure 167. South Campus Development Zone

206 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Promote variation and modulation DEVELOPMENT ZONE L
Figure 168. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
in façades with second upper level
Development needs to be setbacks on Pacific Street
sensitive to the daylighting Develop Columbia Road as an important connector within
needs of the sundial and Life the pedestrian realm, as well as a route for service and
Sciences greenhouses access. Buildings may frame its “walls” and step back to
allow light on the street. Building entries may be located
to help activate the street-level public realm and integrate
Balance increased density
Create porosity and internal and external routes across campus
with an enhanced public
transparency at ground level
realm and view corridors
along NE Pacific Street and
pedestrian connections
15
th S56
Av
S43 S4 4 S57
S42
e
N
E UWMC
Surgery Pavilion

S39 S48
S40 S41 S46 S47
Mo
ntl
ake
NE Pacifi
c St S38 Montlake Tower
Blv
d

S45
S54
Foege
S52
S50
Ocean S55
Sciences
S49
S53
S51
Respect 30’ building
height limit within the 200’
Shoreline District Overlay
Marine
Sciences Legend

Existing UW Building
Step back buildings to minimize Potential Building
Enhance universal access shadows, maximize natural light to
between Central and individual buildings, and views of water Building Envelope
Reinforce connections
South Campus
to West Campus Significant Open Space
Create an accessible open space/ South
Campus Green along the waterfront to Existing Uses Relocated
serve as a public realm amenity 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 207
e
Av
th
15
William H.
Foege

a
is t NE
yV

Pa
c
Ba

ifi
cS
ge

t
tar
Po

Ocean Sciences

K-Wing

H-Wing
Jensen
Motor
Boat

Marine
Sciences
N
E
Co
en

lu
re

m
sG

bi
a
pu

Rd
m
Ca
h
ut
So

Montlake

Montlake Boulevard NE
Utility Plant Tower
UW
Surgery
Pavilion

Glade

208 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
South Campus Development
Standards and Design Guidance

Figure 169. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Mid-block Corridor

View Corridor

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Gateway

Active Edge

Significant Open Space

Forested Edge

Priority Pedestrian Connector

Shared Street

Streetscape Improvements

Service Access

Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 209
EAST
CAMPUS
Figure 170. East Campus Existing Aerial, 2016 East Campus Key Map

10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN


VISION
East Campus currently accommodates
athletics and recreational activities with
parking to support sporting events and
campus commuters, along with the Union
Bay Natural Area. Much of East Campus is
built on a methane-producing landfill and
seismic liquefaction zone, making building
construction more expensive. The 10-year
conceptual plan for East Campus is designed
to:

•• Focus potential new development in the


south portion of East Campus.

•• Preserve and expand intramural and


intercollegiate athletic uses in East
Campus.

•• Balance public realm and open space


along the waterfront with dense
development maximizing productive land
use.

•• Improve connections to Central Campus.

•• Transform a former brownfield site into a


vibrant, productive and desirable campus
sector.
Figure 171. EAST CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

210 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
East Campus Long-Term Vision
Figure 172. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

E81
E82
E80

E79
E78 NE 45t
E75 E76
h Stre
et

E73 E74 E77


E69 E72 E84
E67 E68 E85 E83
E66 E71
E65
E64 E70
eB
lvd E62 E63
l ak
nt
Mo
TA
VI S

E86
ER

E60
INI

E61
RA

E59

HUSKY STADIUM

E58 UNION BAY

Existing Building East Campus Boundary

Potential Building 200’ Shoreline District Overlay


Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 211
PORTAGE BAY
PUBLIC REALM AND
CONNECTIVITY

et
Plans for the East Campus public realm focus on

tre
cS
enhancing connectivity, improving the pedestrian Significant Pedestrian Path

ifi
c
experience, and creating desirable destinations.

Pa
Significant Open Space
•• Siting of development may minimize
Active Ground Floor
continuous wall of buildings along Montlake
and complement the forested edge along Existing Building
Central Campus. Potential Building

•• The existing road network remains, with a new Gateway


east-west vehicular road addition introduced
near Whatcom Lane between Montlake
Boulevard and Walla Walla Road. Triangle Garage

•• East-west connections between Central and


East Campus are strengthened and reinforced
UNIVERSITY OF
through the creation of new development and WASHINGTON STATION
universally accessible pedestrian pathways.
rd
These connections occur at multiple crossings leva
ke B ou
over Montlake at Snohomish Lane, along the Mo ntl a ium
Husky Stad
East Campus Connection, and Whatcom Lane.

•• A new north-south pedestrian-only connection

CON
reinforces movement from the Intramural
Activities Building (IMA) through the potential TINU
development on the E1 lot, toward the O

intramural fields to the north and natural area


US W

to the east. Many of the development sites


ATER

are concentrated on the E1 parking lot, with


taller buildings located adjacent to Montlake
MON

FRO

Boulevard and shorter buildings to the east,


TL A

NT

allowing views to Union Bay.


TR A
E CUK

•• The Union Bay Natural Area includes preserved


IL

shoreline wetlands and areas for passive


T

recreation and ecological tourism. This area WAC


continues to function as a key amenity, with
greater access to the campus and community. e
no
Ca use
Ho

UNION BAY

212 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Public Realm and
Connectivity Diagram
Figure 173. Graphics are for
Illustrative Purposes Only

a rd
ulev
e Bo

Ea
tl ak

st
Mon

Ca
UNIVERSITY

mp

Wh
VILLAGE

us

a tc
Co

om
nn

La
ec
ti o

ne
Snoh

n
omish
Lan e

n Trail
Gilma
Burke-

s Helipad
Grave
ield
IMA F
dson
Ed m u n n
IMA
Pa io
v il
ld
Rd nd Fie
Walla Track
a
Walla

S o cce r

r
ib e a
Con ouse Chaffe
e
llh
She Field
tro m
N o r d s n te r l Rd
is C e C an a
Tenn

ey
D emps

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 213
East Campus Connection
A connection is part of the long-term vision Lane. The significant change in topography
for the sector and is proposed to connect between Central and East Campus creates a
Central Campus to a redeveloped East challenge for accessibility. Buildings framing
Campus and the Union Bay Natural Area the Central Campus side of the connection
and is not contemplated to be part of the provide opportunities for elevator access.
10-year plan. The connection shall intersect The connection would terminate in an active
the Burke-Gilman Trail, and shall replace the pedestrian plaza that frames the southern
existing pedestrian bridge at Wahkiakum edge of the E1 development.

Figure 174. View along Wahkiakum Lane looking toward the E1 parking lot (above) and rendering of the East Campus
Connection, which is a protected view corridor (Figure 175, opposite)

214 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
East Campus Connection
Figure 175. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 215
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
C1-40
Building Height 65’
•• The 10-year conceptual plan shows potential development occurring
in the area around current IMA and ICA development. However, the
majority of the development capacity is on the northern E1 parking
lot and golf driving range. Due to the cost of developing a former
landfill site, it is unlikely that area shall be developed during the 10- C1-65 C2-40
year conceptual plan time-frame. 65’ C2-65
•• Additional significant development occurs on two existing tennis NC2P-40
court banks (tennis courts are replaced on the top of potential
structures), south of the Stadium, and on the Golf Driving Range.
90’/80’ 65’
SF
•• Building heights in East Campus are restricted to 130 feet along
50’
Montlake Boulevard and 65 feet closer to the waterfront to preserve 160’
waterfront views from Central Campus.

130’
•• The Shoreline District Overlay allows building heights of 30 feet,
although no development is proposed within the shoreline area, with

160’/
the exception of E61.
37’/30’
•• Development in Blakeley Village and Laurel Village shall increase
the capacity for student housing through increased density on the 105’
periphery of campus.

50’ 65’

80’ 65’ 105’


30’
65’ 160’

107’ 50’
160’
Figure 176. 2003 CMP Building Heights Figure 177. East Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

216 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
Development Capacity
The development sites map and detailed
capacity figures are identified on pages 218 to
219.

•• The CMP identifies a total of roughly 4.7


million gross square feet of potential
development throughout East Campus.

•• To achieve the long-term vision would


necessitate the replacement of roughly
361,000 million gross square feet of
existing space, resulting in a total net new
development area of 4.3 million gross
square feet.

•• The CMP development limit for East


Campus is 750,000 net new gross square
feet, about 17 percent of the East Campus
growth capacity, or 13 percent of the total
6 million net new gross square feet growth
allowance. This allows for flexibility in siting
building projects.

MIO-37/30 MIO-160/107

MIO-50 MIO-160/130

MIO-65 MIO-160

MIO-90/80 MIO-200

MIO-105 MIO-240

200’ Shoreline District


Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 217
Table 12. East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet * Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites

TOTAL TOTAL CONDITIONED


PERCENT NET NEW APPROX# MAXIMUM EXISTING
SITE ENVELOPE MAXIMUM DEMO GROSS DOWN ACADEMIC
SITE NAME OF GROSS OF BLDG HT PARKING
ID GROSS GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILDING USES
ENVELOPE SQUARE FEET FLOORS LIMIT SPACES
SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET HEIGHTS
A/MU/T/IP/
E58 E12 Parking Lot 660,000 360,000 55% 360,000 6 160 822
ACC
E59 West of Hec Ed 145,000 75,000 52% 27,045 47,955 4 105 A/MU/IP/ACC
E60 Tennis Court Site 190,000 150,000 79% 150,000 2 65 A/MU/IP/ACC
E61 North of Conibear Shellhouse 50,000 35,000 70% 35,000 2 37 30 132 A/MU/IP/ACC
Tennis Court Site West of IMA A/MU/T/IP/
E62 290,000 235,000 81% 235,000 4 65
Field ACC
E63 West of soccer field 50,000 35,000 70% 35,000 8 37 30 A/MU/IP/ACC

E64 E1 Site 1 125,000 100,000 80% 100,000 4 65 264* A/MU/IP/ACC


E65 E18 Parking Lot - SW Site* 310,000 190,000 61% 190,000 3 160 130 264* A/MU/IP/ACC
E66 E1 Site 3* 130,000 105,000 81% 105,000 4 65 264* A/MU/IP/ACC
E67 E1 Site 2* 475,000 285,000 60% 285,000 9 160 130 264* A/MU/IP/ACC
E68 E1 Site 5* 125,000 100,000 80% 100,000 4 65 264* A/MU/IP/ACC
E69 E1 Site 4* 425,000 235,000 55% 235,000 9 160 130 264* A/MU/IP/ACC
E70 South of Husky Track 45,000 35,000 78% 35,000 3 37 30 A/MU/IP/ACC
E71 North of Husky Track 50,000 35,000 70% 35,000 2 37 30 A/MU/IP/ACC
E72 E1 Site 7* 145,000 145,000 100% 145,000 5 65 262* A/MU/IP/ACC
E73 E1 Site 6* 425,000 280,000 66% 280,000 9 160 130 262* A/MU/IP/ACC
E74 E1 Site 9* 195,000 180,000 92% 180,000 5 65 262* A/MU/IP/ACC
E75 E1 Site 8* 370,000 225,000 61% 225,000 9 160 130 262* A/MU/IP/ACC
E76 E1 Site 10* 240,000 180,000 75% 180,000 6 90 80 264* A/MU/IP/ACC
E77 Golf Driving Range Site South 445,000 330,000 74% 330,000 5 90 80 A/MU/IP/ACC
A/MU/T/IP/
E78 Golf Driving Range Site North 420,000 355,000 85% 355,000 6 90 80
ACC
E79 E2 Parking Lot Site 210,000 160,000 76% 160,000 6 90 80 80 A/MU/IP/ACC
Plant Services Site / N26
E80 340,000 230,000 68% 144,198 85,802 4 65 5 A/MU/IP/ACC
Parking Lot
E81 Blakeley Village West 135,000 105,000 78% 84,390 20,610 4 65 A/H/T

E82 Blakeley Village East 135,000 120,000 89% 120,000 4 65 A/H/T


E83 Laurel Village East 105,000 70,000 67% 88,536 -18,536 2 37 30 A/H/T
E84 Laurel Village West 240,000 195,000 81% 195,000 2 65 A/H/T
E85 Ceramic and Metal Arts 75,000 50,000 67% 16,946 33,054 2 37 30 A/MU/IP/ACC
E86 Urban Horticulture Site 80,000 55,000 69% 55,000 2 37 30 A/MU/IP/ACC

TOTAL - EAST 6,630,000 4,655,000 73% 361,115 4,293,885 3,935

Academic General Uses: A - Academic; H - Housing; MU - Mixed Use; T - Transportation; OS - Open Space; IP - Industry Partnership/Manufacturing; ACC - Academic Conference Center
“Maximum Building Height Limit” refers to the height limit allowed under the MIO zoning height.

218 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
NE 45th Street

E79
Development Sites
Figure 178. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
E78
E84 E83
E76 E85
Rd
E77 C l a rk
E75 E74 NE

E73
E72

E
E69 E68 E71

lvd N
lake B
E86
E67 E66
M o nt
E70
E65 E64
E63
E
Rd N
E62 Walla
Walla

E61
E60 E81

E59 E82

NE

25th Ave NE
Pa
c ifi
c
St
r ee
t
E80
University Village

E58 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 219
ZONE Q

ZONE P

East Campus Design Guidance


Design guidance related to the five
development zones throughout East Campus
is provided on the following pages.

ZONE N
ZONE O

ZONE M

Figure 179. East Campus Development Zones.

220 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE M
Figure 180. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Protect Mt. Rainier view


corridor with no buildings
Incorporate parking into obstructing a clear viewshed
topography, out of view from Blv d NE
tlake
Montlake Boulevard and Mon
without visually intruding into
the Rainier Vista Viewshed
E62 Rd
N E
all a
l la W
Wa

Hec Edmundson IMA

E60
t
Pavilion
Pacific S

d
he
ie ws
aV
E61
Husky
is t N E
rV l Rd
E59
e Stadium
ini Conibear Chaffey Field an a
Ra C
Shellhouse

Nordstrom
Tennis

NE
l vd Dempsey
eB
ak Indoor Center
ntl
Mo

E58

Respect 30’ building height limit


W.A.C. within the 200’ Shoreline District
Overlay
Canoe
House

Legend
Improve pedestrian
connections and access Existing UW Building
to the shoreline
The Climbing Rock remains in its existing Potential Building
location. It is recommended that a Building Envelope
minimum of thirty feet remain between
Significant Open Space
the eastern edge of the E85 development
site and the west edge of the climbing rock Existing Uses Relocated
as a buffer to maintain its viability
200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 221
DEVELOPMENT ZONE N
Figure 181. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only Maximize floorplates for
programming flexibility

Structure development in
a manner that promotes
Existing pedestrian porosity and minimizes
bridge across Montlake impression of a street wall
Boulevard remains E79
Facilitate connections
between East and
Central Campus
Design to establish a
E76
planted edge along E75
Montlake NE
E78
E73
45t
hS

E
t

dN
aR
E69

all
E74

aW
E67

ll
Wa
lake B
lv d NE E72
M o nt
E65 E68 E77
6
E6 E71
Building heights Intramural
step down toward
E64
Sports Field
Q
the shoreline Husky
E7

Outdoor
E63
0

Track
P
d NE
a Walla R
Wa ll
Preserve recreation and
open space along shoreline
Soccer Field
N O
Create an inviting and
universally accessible
public realm throughout Maintain existing
helipad and
related setbacks

C an a
l Roa
d NE Enhance pedestrian M
connections to the Union
Bay Natural Area
222 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE O
Figure 182. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Improve pedestrian environment
and universal access Increased building heights along
NE 45th and Mary Gates Memorial Drive
45
th
St NE allow more compact development
footprint and increased open space.
Lower building heights of 30 feet
Enhance pedestrian connections Improve visual quality abut the residential neighborhood
between East Campus development of storage yards along the property edge
and the Union Bay Natural Area IMA
NE C
l ark Sports Field
Rd
IMA
Sports Field

E84 r NE
Environmental
Safety Storage
E85

lD
Building

o ri a
NE
45
th

em
St
3
E8

sM
ate
ry G
Ma
UNION BAY NATURAL AREA
Urban Horticulture
Center

E86
NE
41s
t St

Legend

Existing UW Building

Potential Building
Protect Union Bay Natural Area and limit
Building Envelope
development near wetland areas according to
relevant environmental regulations Respect 30’ building Significant Open Space
height limit within the 200’ Existing Uses Relocated
Shoreline District Overlay
200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 223
DEVELOPMENT ZONE P
Figure 183. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Maximize floorplates for
programming flexibility

Improve experiential quality Strive to create a


of the Burke-Gilman Trail comfortable pedestrian
with landscape buffer il
Tra experience along 25th
n
l ma Avenue
- Gi
r ke
Bu
NE
45
th
St

E80

Create transparency P
and visibility along
25th Avenue NE

Pl
l le
n dO
rei N O
Pe
Relate building heights to scale of
University Village across 25th
NE
ve
hA
25t

224 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
DEVELOPMENT ZONE Q
Figure 184. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Activate building edges along


UW does not own the segment of Burke-Gilman Trail and adhere to
the Burke-Gilman Trail between 20’ trail setback Increased building heights and density
25th Ave NE and 35th Ave NE allow more compact development
footprint and increased open space

Burke-Gilman Trail

E81
Create courtyards for
E82 30
th
flexible community use Av
e NE

t
hS
49t
N E

Nordheim Court Maintain similar parking


to unit ratios parking as
existing Blakely Village

Legend

Maintain public realm Existing UW Building


25t

connections to existing Potential Building


hA

communities
ve N

Building Envelope
E

Significant Open Space

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 225
NE 45th St

IMA
Field
IMA
Field

M.
G
at
es
Me
d

mo
rk R
Cl a

ri a
NE

lD
rN
E
Douglas
IMA Urban Research
Field Horticultural Conservatory
Center

Husky
Outdoor
Track

Soccer Field

E
Rd N

E
IMA

dN
E

Field
lvd N

Walla
Chaffey

al R
Field

C an
lake B

Walla
M o nt

Intramural
Activities
Graves
Conibear
Shellhouse

Edmundson
Union Bay
Nordstrom

Dempsey

Husky Stadium Softball

WAC

226 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan
East Campus Development
Standards and Design Guidance

Figure 185. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Mid-block Corridor

View Corridor

200’ Shoreline District Overlay

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Gateway

Active Edge

Significant Open Space

Forested Edge

Priority Pedestrian Connector

Shared Street

Streetscape Improvements

Service Access

Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan 227
7
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS

228 July 2017 Final Plan


•• INTRODUCTION

•• DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

•• DEFINITIONS

July 2017 Final Plan 229


INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the development •• Provide adequate light, air, access,
standards that guide proposed development and open space; conserve the natural
within the campus boundaries. The City- environments and historic resources;
University Agreement requires that all maintain a compatible scale within
University of Washington development within a campus sector; and enhance the
the Major Institution Overlay (MIO) boundary streetscape and pedestrian environment.
follow the standards outlined in this chapter.
While Chapter 6 includes design guidance •• Seek to achieve an efficient use of the
to be used to achieve the design intent University’s property without major
for the campus, this chapter includes the disruption of the natural environment and
required development standards for campus to direct development to campus sectors
development. with adequate services and amenities.

The purposes of the development standards in


this Chapter are to:

•• Protect and promote public health, safety


and general welfare and to guide the use
of land consistent with the goals and vision
of the University of Washington’s Campus
Master Plan (CMP).

•• Increase awareness of land use decisions


and their impacts.

230 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan


Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan 231
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
The following development standards regulate development varies on a site by site requires a Plan amendment according
the development of individual sites with the basis, and reinforces the degree to which to the provisions of the City-University
goal of creating an active, desirable and safe light and air are introduced on each site. Agreement because the Director of SDCI
public realm. Development standards are For a graphic depiction of the building (or its successor department) determines
mandatory requirements that shall be met by envelope and maximum square footage that the specific use proposed for a site,
all campus development unless modified by per development site, please refer to Figure within the broad use categories permitted
the amendment process outlined in the City- 186. in tables 14 through 17, is inconsistent
University Agreement. with the guiding principles or polices of
•• A new development site: A proposal for a this Campus Master Plan, or because
The total net new gross square feet of development site not previously approved of the use relationship to, or cumulative
development permitted in this CMP shall be shall constitute an exempt Campus use impacts upon, area surrounding the
allocated to four campus sectors as defined Master Plan change, unless the proposal University boundary.
on page 86, and as shown in Table 13. The four
areas constitute “sectors” for the purposes of
Section IIC of the City-University Agreement.
Table 13. Development Capacity and Permitted Development by
•• Every development site has a building
height limit and maximum square footage
Campus Sector
requirement, which can be found on the
POTENTIAL NET NEW NET NEW MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
tables on pages 234 to 237. Potential DEVELOPMENT (GROSS DEVELOPMENT (GROSS DEVELOPMENT LIMIT
building envelopes are identified within the SQUARE FEET) SQUARE FEET) (%)
sector by sector development capacity CENTRAL 1,631,941 900,000 15%
tables on pages 234 to 237. The building
WEST 3,762,199 3,000,000 50%
footprints as shown on page 124 through
SOUTH 2,208,735 1,350,000 23%
127 are used to visualize a possible form
EAST 4,293,885 750,000 12%
for future development. Actual building
footprints and massings shall vary from TOTAL 11,896,760 6,000,000 100%
those shown. The percentage of each
building envelope that is occupied by

232 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan


•• Moving GSF from one site to another
within a sector: If the maximum building
square footage per development site
is not used on a development site, the
unutilized portion of gross square footage
can be moved to another development
site or sites within that sector as long as
the maximum height limit and total net
new square footage growth allowance of 6
million is not exceeded.

•• Exceeding GSF in one sector: The net new


square footage of growth allowance may
exceed the allocation for each campus
sector by up to 20% on a cumulative basis
over the life of this Plan without a Plan
amendment. Development that would
cause the net new gross square footage
for a sector to exceed the permitted
gross square feet of development for that
sector by more than 20% on a cumulative
basis over the life of this Plan, is a change
that may be approved as a minor plan
amendment, provided that the 6 million
net new square footage growth allowance
is not exceeded, the change would not
result in significantly greater impacts
than those contemplated in the FEIS for
the CMP, and the amendment would be Figure 186. Proposed Building Envelopes. Graphics are for Total Buildable Envelope
consist with the 2018 Seattle CMP guiding Illustrative Purposes Only
Allowable Building Massing / GSF Restriction
principles.

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan 233


* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites
** Gross square feet are accounted for within the 2003 Campus Master Plan
*** Total incorporates gross square feet that are already accounted for under the 2003 CMP
Table 14. Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet related to sites C5 and C6

TOTAL TOTAL CONDITIONED


PERCENT NET NEW APPROX# MAXIMUM EXISTING
SITE ENVELOPE MAXIMUM DEMO GROSS DOWN ACADEMIC
SITE NAME OF GROSS OF BLDG HT PARKING
ID