Ur CMP 2016 Final Screen

U N I V E R S I T Y O F R E G I N A
CAMPUS MASTER
PLAN 2016016
University of Regina
3737 Wascana Parkway
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4S 0A2
Main switchboard: 306-585-4111

www.uregina.ca
Planning, Design & Construction

Facilities Management
University of Regina
Phone: 306-585-4648
Fax: 306-585-5064
DTAH
Architecture /
Landscape Architecture /
Urban Design
50 Park Road
Toronto, Ontario M4W 2N5
Phone: (416) 968-9479
Fax: (416) 698-0687
www.dtah.com
Robert Allsopp, Roger du Toit

Brent Raymond, Peter Fletcher Smith
Yasmine Abdel-Hay, Rene Biberstein
Seven Chen
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE ii

The 2016 University of Regina Campus
Master Plan is dedicated to
Roger du Toit / 1939 - 2015
Roger was Architect Planner and Chair of Wascana Centre

Authority’s Architectural Advisory Committee since 1982. His
passion for quality planning and design is evident throughout
Wascana Centre, and his authorship of numerous Wascana
Centre and University of Regina Campus Master Plans leaves a
legacy for generations to come.
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE iii

Letter from the President
The title of the University of Regina’s 2015-2020 strategic plan – peyak aski
kikawinaw – is Cree for “We are one with Mother Earth.” It is fitting, then, that our
2016 Campus Master Plan flows naturally from the institutional strategic plan by
paying particular attention to how our physical campus develops and interacts with
our own patch of “Mother Earth.”
The Master Plan aligns the physical development of our campus with our strategic
priorities – student success, research that has impact, and commitment to our
communities. At the same time, it addresses our two overarching areas of
emphasis – Indigenization and sustainability – and in doing so gives us the means
by which we can realize the goals we have set together for our University and the
communities it serves.
Our main campus and the College Avenue Campus (CAC) in Regina are located
on Treaty Four land. For this reason, we have the honour and responsibility of
being stewards of this historical land as we plan for future development. There are
strong elements of our commitment to stewardship in the 2016 Campus Master
Plan. For example, the Master Plan identifies our campus as “A Prairie Place” –
and recognizes the value of both the natural and the cultural prairie landscape
in future development. Strategies for responsible and sustainable development
include using native and hardy trees and shrubs and naturalized grasses where
possible, reducing our reliance on irrigation, and collaborating with First Nations to
incorporate culturally relevant symbols and settings into the campus landscape.
As we move forward, we look to and build on our past even as we change, adapt
and plan for the future. Nowhere is this more apparent than with our original
College Avenue Campus. More than 100 years ago, the University of Regina began
its history at CAC. Now home to the University’s Centre for Continuing Education
(including the Lifelong Learning Centre and the Conservatory of Performing Arts),
each year CAC serves approximately 8,000 learners between six months and 97
years of age, and hosts dozens of community and cultural events.
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE iv

Now the time has come to restore and revitalize this historical property, and the 2016
Campus Master Plan helps us envision future space and considerations as we prepare to
educate the next century of learners and leaders in Saskatchewan.
The 2016 Campus Master Plan is rich in its vision, and is built on the inspired participation
of the many members of our community who contributed to its development. It will be an
invaluable guide for future decisions. It is grounded in our history, culture, and principles, but
at the same time it moves us forward with common purpose, making us stronger, together.
Dr. Vianne Timmons
President and Vice-Chancellor
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE v

Acknowledgements
The creation of University of Regina 2016 Campus Master Plan was a fourteen
month process that required extensive effort and consultation. The Working,
Steering, and Advisory Committees were the groups that were instrumental in
guiding the development of the plan and, for that reason, they are specifically listed
below. In addition, the Steering Committee vetted all documents and briefings prior
to being presented to broader audiences and the Board of Governors for approval.
Extensive consultations also took place and included: the University Board of
Governors and Senate, First Nations University, Campion and Luther Colleges, the
City of Regina, the Wascana Centre Board of Directors, and the many members
of the University of Regina community including students, faculty, alumni, and
staff who shared their thoughts and comments and provided valuable input into
the Campus Master Plan. In addition, Facilities Management staff were consulted
to obtain their grass roots ideas and suggestions for improvement. Finally, the
excellent work and support of the DuToit Allsop Hillier (DTAH) Consultant team
(see below) greatly assisted the consultation efforts, analysis of the information
provided, and the production of this formal plan.
All of this effort lead to the creation of an inspiring Campus Master Plan that will
guide the development of both campuses for the next five years. Thank you to
everyone who participated in this exceptional process and outcome. This is your
Campus Master Plan.
Nelson Wagner
Associate Vice-President
Facilities Management
Steering Committee
Name Position
Vianne Timmons President and Vice Chancellor
Annette Revet University Secretary
Tom Chase Provost and VP Academic
David Malloy VP Research
Dave Button VP Administration
Dale Eisler Senior Advisor, Government
Relations
Kim McKechney Director, Communications,
Marketing and Alumni Rela-
tions
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE vi

Advisory Committee
Name Position Representing
Shauneen Pete Indigenization Lead Strategic Plan, Faculty
Carol Reyda Sustainability Coordinator Presidents Advisory Commit-
tee on Sustainability, Facilities
Management
Nwakaku Okere Student Student Rep, Presidents Ad-
visory Committee on Sustain-
ability
Ryan Weir Senior Property Manager Innovation Place
Dena McMartin AVP Academic & Research VP Research, VP Academic
Bettina Welsh Director – Student Affairs Residence, Food Services,
Operations Bookstore
Harvey King Director - Centre for Continu- CCE, Faculty, College Avenue
ing Education Campus
Devon Peters President - URSU Student Union
John Smith AVP Student Affairs Student Affairs
Bruce Anderson AVP Development Donor Relations, Faculty,
Chamber of Commerce, Stra-
tegic Plan team
Colleen Murphy University Librarian Library
Kaytlyn Barber Alumni Association Board Alumni
Lynn Wells Vice President – Academic First Nations University
Bernadette McIntyre CEO Wascana Centre Author- Wascana Centre Authority
ity
David Keeping Director of Planning & Special Luther College
Projects – Luther College
Louise Folk Director, Development Ser- City of Regina
vices
Terri Phillips Manager – Centre for Student Accessibility
Accessibility
Ken Yanko Director of Facilities - Cam- Campion College
pion
Working Committee
Paula Matz Project Manager, FM
Carol Reyda Project Manager, Sustainability
Coordinator
Alex Buehler Manager, Campus Planning
and Design
Mike Baril Campus Planner
Darcy Strinholm Campus Planner
Neil Paskewitz Director, Planning, Design &
Construction
Everett Dorma External Relations
Therese Stecyk Web Strategist
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE vii

Contents
1.0 Introduction and Summary 1

1.1 Role and Scope of the Campus Plan 2
1.2 A History of Planning 3
1.3 The 2011 Plan 4
1.4 Significant Changes in the 2016 Plan 5
1.5 2016 Campus Plan Structure 6
1.6 Plan Flexibility and Longevity 7
1.7 Planning Horizon. 7
2.0 The Campus Today 9

2.1 The University’s Location in Regina 10
2.2 The College Avenue Campus 11
2.3 The Main Campus 12
2.4 Campus Infrastructure 18
2.5 Landscape 20
2.6 Pedestrian Concourse System 22
2.7 Other University Facilities 23
3.0 Planning Strategies 25

Strategy 1: A Prairie Place 26
Strategy 2: The Main Campus and the Knowledge Corridor 28
Strategy 3: Role of the College Avenue Campus 30
Strategy 4: The Provision of Space 31
Strategy 5: Quality, Permanence and Economy 32
Strategy 6: Sustainable Development 32
Strategy 7: Respect for Land Value 33
Strategy 8: Constituent and Communal Needs 34
Strategy 9: Wayfinding and Signage 35
Strategy 11: Named Places 38
Strategy 12: Community Life on Campus 39
Strategy 13: Universal Access 40
Strategy 14: Enhancing Physical Assets 41
Strategy 14: Compact Campus Size 42
Strategy 16: Spatial Structure 44
Strategy 17: Landscape Structure 46
Strategy 18: Road and Path Structure 48
Strategy 19: Bicycles 50
Strategy 20: The Pedestrian Concourse System 52
Strategy 21: Parking 54
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE viii

Strategy 22: Public Transit 56
Strategy 23: Materials Handling 58
Strategy 24: Athletic Facilities 59
Strategy 25: Animating the Academic Green 60
Strategy 28: Project Design Checklist 64
Strategy 29: Space Allocation 69
Strategy 30: Campus Expansion Priority 70
4.0 Demonstration Plan 71

4.1 Wascana Parkway Frontage 72
4.2 The Wascana Lake Frontage 74
4.3 Dr. Lloyd Barber Academic Green 75
4.4 East-West Pedestrian Mall 76
4.5 North-South Pedestrian Green 77
4.6 Athletics Precinct 78
4.7 Residential Precinct 79
4.8 Campion College 80
4.9 Luther College 81
4.10 First Nations University Of Canada 82
4.11 Innovation Place 84
4.12 East Campus 86
4.13 Grant Road Site 86
4.14 College Avenue Campus 88
4.15 Composite Plan: Mid-Range - 25 Years 90
4.16 Composite Plan: Full Build Out 92
5.0 Campus Planning History 95

1962 – Yamasaki/Church Plan 96
1967 – Yamasaki/Church Review 98
1972 – Long Plan 100
1977 – Long Review 102
1982 – du Toit Plan 104
1987 – du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan 106
1999 - du Toit Allsopp Hillier Research Park Plan 112
2004 - du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan 114
2011 - Dialog Plan 116
Part of a Larger Development Pattern 118
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE ix

UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF
OF REGINA
REGINA // CAMPUS
CAMPUS MASTER
MASTER PLAN 2016 // PAGE
PLAN // 2016 PAGE viii
viii
1.0 Introduction and Summary
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF
OF REGINA
REGINA // CAMPUS
CAMPUS MASTER
MASTER PLAN 2016 // PAGE
PLAN // 2016 PAGE 11
1.1 Role and Scope of
the Campus Plan
yet to be designed by many different
people at different times; and therefore a
fixed blueprint representing a construction
The Whole is Greater than the Parts. scenario at a single point in time is
inappropriate. The Plan must be firm about
The idea behind preparing a campus plan the principles, but flexible about the detailed
is that quality of the physical environment building programs which will be developed
matters. People would rather enrol, teach, to meet needs as they arise or can be
work or study in a campus which is pleasant funded. The participatory process used to
to inhabit, and which is organized to assist prepare this plan was designed to clarify
rather than hinder people as they work, what the principles are.
study, socialize or play.
A Component of the Institutional Plan.
The Campus Plan for the University of A comprehensive Institutional Plan for the
Regina is therefore aimed at ensuring University of Regina has three primary com
that the physical environment, both built ponents — academic and related needs
and natural, meets the needs and aspira planning, financial planning, and physi
tions of its inhabitants and the community cal or development planning (the Campus
around it, and enables institutional goals Plan)—each of which is founded on the
to be realized in a coordinated way. The broad goals and objectives of the Universi
Plan is the vehicle for implementing new ty’s mission, and which specify the means
projects, for repairing deficiencies, and for whereby those goals and objectives are to
preserving valuable facilities, landscapes be realized. All components are guided by
and infrastructure. It is a major component the University’s Strategic Plan. While each
of the Wascana Centre Authority Master plan focuses on a different field, they are
Plan, and provides a means for articulating a highly interdependent: the policies of one
common purpose within the University, and exercise influence and/or respond to the
for communicating it to the outside world. conclusions of another as they are devel
oped and implemented.
The campus of the future is a family of
projects, many now existing and others
ATEGIC PLAN
STR
Physical
Plan
Academic Financial
Plan Plan
Institutional Plan
Components
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 2

1.2 A History of Planning weak sense of focus and structure. The
incomplete indoor pedestrian ‘street’ system
The development of the University of and the disproportionate number of isolated
Regina campus has been guided by a buildings put students and faculty to some
series of Master Plans that each attempted inconvenience and discomfort during the
to incorporate new requirements and winter. Most of the development that has
circumstances into a fabric that was only occurred since 1989 has sought to reme
partially realized. Early ideas (Yamasaki, dy the situation by developing a compact
1962) about pavilions and small court yards series of linked buildings that together
connected by a continuous podium level define a logical and clearly defined open
gave way to a pattern of large, freestanding space network.
buildings that were to be linked through
long corridors at ground level (Long 1972). The planning process at the University of
All Plans imagined a central open space Regina Main Campus has an interesting
as a focus to the campus. The 1982 du history. When the current location for a new
Toit Plan envisioned a compact series of campus was selected in the early 1960s
interconnected buildings that provided a and it became apparent that most of the
continuous indoor pedestrian circulation considerable land area around Wascana
system around the focal open space, now Lake would be in public ownership, the idea
identified as the Lloyd Barber Academic of Wascana Centre was born. The Univer
Green. The Academic Green was at the sity’s Master Planner and first architect,
head of a ceremonial Mall about which Minoru Yamasaki, planned the campus and
development in the south part of the then went on to produce a Master Plan for
campus was to be organized. Wascana Centre as a whole. Because of
The Wascana Centre Act, which initially re
The success of the original 1962 University quired a revision of the plan every five years
plan depended upon the completion of (although the Centre now updates their
many phases of building within a relatively plans every seven years) , the University
short period of time. When development has a history of Master Plans in five year
slowed down in the 1970s, the campus increments.
was left in an ‘unfinished’ state with a
Main Campus:
The First Phase of
Development

1.3 The 2011 Plan population sufficient to support a full range
of services and social opportunities. The
As the campus matures, the differences 2011 Plan identifies the University as a
between successive Master Plans have Campus in the Park with a well-developed,
become less pronounced. The 2016 Master four-season open space framework that
Plan continues the tradition by confirming facilitates academic and social interaction,
or refining the directives of previous plans and provides high connectivity between
and, in particular, the 2011 Master Plan. buildings and between the campus and
While the style and format is different, the adjacent uses. The Plan suggests that the
2011 Master Plan sets out a vision for the campus could be more welcoming and
campus that is itself a direct extension of have stronger ties to its context through
that contained within the 2003 Master Plan. improvements to the Wascana Parkway and
Wascana Lake frontages. In the 2011 Plan,
The 2011 Plan promotes a campus that campus streets are upgraded, more parking
is “welcoming, sustainable, diverse and is accommodated in structures, public
connected”. The built form of the campus transit is improved, and bicycle facilities are
will be compact and interconnected, and upgraded.
will accommodate a student/faculty/staff
2011 Plan:
Main Campus

1.4 Significant Changes in the 2016
Plan
landscapes need to become less reliant
on artificial irrigation and intensive
maintenance. Campus landscapes
The major objectives and strategies in the should be maintained in accordance
2011 Plan are all carried forward to the 2016 with their specific roles and importance.
Master Plan. Changes in the new Plan are A limited number of priority landscapes
primarily refinements and extensions, and that perform important functions should
adaptations to emerging circumstances. be identified for high maintenance.
Key changes include: Other landscapes that perform more of
a background role should evolve into
• A Prairie Campus, and a Campus self-sustaining places that celebrate
in the Park. The 2016 Plan extends drought-resistant native plantings and
the idea of a “Campus in a Park” local materials.
to include greater consideration of
native plants and design motifs. The • Materials Handling. A materials
2016 Plan identifies the University handling strategy is a new addition
as a “Prairie Place”. The University to the 2016 Plan. To reduce conflicts
is very much rooted in the prairies in between trucks and pedestrians and
terms of it origins, history and present the visual impact of loading docks and
character. Ongoing landscape design equipment, the 2016 Plan outlines a
should embrace natural and cultural building pattern that embeds servicing
prairie themes to produce a sustainable yards and facilities within groups
campus connected to the local context. of buildings and away from heavily
travelled pathways and streets.
• Campus Landscape Structure. The
“Green Connections” concept set out • The Northeast Residence Quadrant.
in the 2011 Plan is extended to include Consistent with the development of an
additional corridors and spaces. The “Outer Campus”, future development of
2016 Plan recommends that these the Residence Quadrant is organized to
landscape corridors be highly developed create plazas that reach out to embrace
and protected from future development. the Lake and shoreline landscapes.
• The Outer Campus. Strategies for • The Southeast Mixed-use Quadrant.

enhancing the Wascana Parkway and The future parkade and arena are
Wascana Lake frontages are refined and reorganized and coupled with a possible
strengthened. The key strategy involves academic facility or residence. The new
the organization of new buildings development pattern strengthens the
to form plazas that reach out to the landscape corridor structure in this part
Wascana Parkway and the Wascana of the campus, and places servicing in a
Lake shoreline. discreet location within the block.
• The Maturing Campus. The 2016 • College Avenue Campus. Future

Plan recognizes that significant development at the College Avenue
portions of the Main Campus are in Campus is organized to preserve the
a mature state in that buildings and unique College Avenue frontage, protect
landscapes are well-established and valuable heritage buildings and embrace
generally permanent. While change and the Lake and park landscapes to the
adjustment will continue to occur over south. Significant new developments
time, these areas are valuable assets to extend south from the existing buildings
protect and carefully manage. to form a linear mall or plaza centred on
the axis of the College Building. Parking
• Landscape Maintenance and is accommodated beneath existing
Management. Water is a precious buildings and in surface lots, which
commodity across the prairies. Campus remain available for users off hours.

1.5 2016 Campus Plan Structure development programs change over time.
The plan deals with more enduring aspects
The organization of the 2016 Campus Plan of the campus buildings and landscapes
document is modeled on campus plans that will act as the lasting container for ever-
that preceded the 2011 Plan. These Plans changing program offerings.
presented recommendations in the form
of clearly articulated strategies supported Plan Flexibility and Longevity
by a demonstration plan. This format gives
precedence to the intent and purpose of Master Plans may express an institution’s
individual strategies, and permits the design expectations at the time they are drafted,
of future projects to unfold at such time as but these expectations are not static. The
specific programs and circumstances are Campus Plan itself must be able to evolve
defined. This format also provides project along with the University’s needs and
proponents and project reviewers with clear resources or it will soon become redundant.
guidance and succinct tools for evaluation.
The 2016 Campus Plan, based on a set of
Components of the 2016 Campus Plan. strategies rather than a single design, will
The 2016 Campus Plan is a principle- remain as a firm basis on which to direct
based directive intended to guide physical campus development if it is adopted as
development decisions as they arise University policy and if mechanisms are
while retaining the flexibility necessary to established for its periodic review and
accommodate many possible futures. It is updating. This discipline will ensure that
made up of two primary components. the Plan is sufficiently current and rele
vant to protect the University community
Planning Strategies set out the essential from arbitrary or single-constituent deci
approach to be followed relative to the sions while retaining the flexibility neces
various topics that require coordination and sary to accommodate genuine evolution.
forethought as the campus develops. They It also provides a consistent method of
include strategies for the siting and arrange collaboration with the Wascana Centre
ment of academic and communal facilities, Authority through the Architectural Advisory
the infrastructure of circulation, the land Committee review process and integration
scape that ties the campus together, and of the University’s plan in to the Wascana
the design parameters for projects as they Centre Authority Master Plan.
come on stream.
Planning Horizon
The Demonstration Plan illustrates one way
in which the planning strategies might be In preparing a Campus Plan, the planning
implemented given current development horizon is a critical question. How far ahead
expectations and possibilities. Over the life can we see and reliably predict (and direct)
of the Main Campus, seven demonstration how development will unfold? Realistically,
plans have been prepared (see Chapter the answer to this is, “With any precision
5). Each has varied from its predecessor, or confidence, not very far”. The economic,
sometimes greatly, sometimes little. The academic, political and technical factors
future will see further refinements, while the that enable and drive campus development
strategies or principles will remain constant. are predictable only within a certain range;
the further we look ahead, the less clear our
The plan does not deal with a fixed Devel perspective.
opment Program. It illustrates development
opportunities and sometimes suggests At the same time, the Plan must look ahead
where actual proposals could be located. as far as possible because decisions taken
However, it does not fix, for example, that today will determine or, at least, influence
a particular university program will be future options and opportunities. In the
located in a specific building made for it worst case scenario, short-term decisions
in a particular location. This is because taken without regard for a long-term future

may seriously compromise the ability to fairly certain to proceed; others are more
meet future objectives. Conversely, good speculative, but quite possible given
decisions today will enable a future that is certain conditions.
yet to be fully defined.
• Long Range. The planning Strategies
The 2016 Campus Plan addresses planning presented in the Campus Plan present a
horizons at two levels: long range perspective. The Strategies
represent goals and objectives that
• Medium Term. The Demonstration Plan should guide all projects both now and
represents a Medium Term planning well into the future. Open-ended in terms
horizon, which extends, perhaps, 25 of implementation, the Strategies are the
years in the future. The Plan represents part of the Campus Plan that protects
current academic goals and known for future development requirements that
projections. Some projects shown are cannot now be seen.
General Land Ownership

2.0 The Campus Today
This section describes the main features of the existing

campus and associated land holdings: the buildings and
the units they house, landscape and infrastructure.

2.1 The University’s Location
in Regina
institutions are housed: the University
of Regina, the First Nations University
of Canada (FNUniv), Saskatchewan
The University has three land holdings Polytechnic (SaskPoly), and Innovation
within Wascana Centre: Main Campus, Place Research Park. Further studies and
College Avenue Campus, and Wascana East Master Planning of this area are currently in
University Expansion. progress by these four partners in concert
with the Wascana Centre Authority, City of
The South East part of Wascana Centre is Regina, Saskatchewan Ministry of Central
developing into a “Knowledge Corridor” Services, and the Provincial Department,
in which separate but interconnected SaskLearning Advanced Education.
University campuses in Regina

2.2 The College Avenue Campus • Darke Hall (1928 and 1963; 26,500 sq.ft.
(2,462 sq.m.)), containing a recital hall/
The College Avenue Campus is performance theatre and practice rooms.
approximately 21 acres (8.5 hectares) and
contains four buildings, three of which are These are for the most part heritage
linked together: buildings, clad in brick, in a collegiate
Gothic style, surrounded by generous treed
• College Building (1912; 60,500 sq.ft. grounds. The large parking lot to the south
(5,620 sq.m.)), housing the Centre for of the buildings is slightly depressed and
Continuing Education; surrounded by landscaping which conceals
the cars, so that the lot, although large, is
• Conservatory (1916; 33,100 sq.ft. (3,075 well-integrated into the landscape.
sq.m.)), housing the Conservatory of
Performing Arts;
• Gallery Building (1953 and 1957; 20,500

sq.ft. (1,904 sq.m.)), housing the Life
Long Learning Seniors Education Centre,
and Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School
Aerial photo of College
Avenue campus
of Public Policy; and

2.3 The Main Campus
The Main Campus lands north and east

of Wascana Parkway are approximately
270 acres (110 hectares) in extent. Most of
the campus buildings and parking lots are
contained within the University Drive loop
on approximately 90 acres (36 hectares); the
fields take up about 25 acres (10 hectares),
the Innovation Place Research Park Phase
One area is about 86 acres (35 hectares)
and the FNUniv land about 30 acres (12
hectares).
The buildings within the University Drive

loop form a rough circle around an open
space called the Academic Green. Working
counter-clockwise from the north-east side
of the Main Campus, they are: Main Campus Context
• Kisik Towers (Completed 2015; 319,500

sq. ft. (29,700sq.m)), the first building in • Classroom Building and Lecture Hall
the Residential Precinct. Includes 600 (1965; 119,500 sq.ft. (11,100 sq.m.)),
beds of student housing, as well as a 90 three storeys over a one-storey podium
child daycare, and 140 vehicle below- in similar architectural style and cladding
grade parking structure. to the Library. It houses lecture theatres,
computer labs, and the main offices and
• The Language Institute (1991; 74,600 a number of departments of the Faculty
sq.ft. (6,930 sq.m.)), consisting of a two- of Arts.
storey base and six-storey residence
tower above, clad in Tyndall stone. • Laboratory Building (1965; 137,800
It contains offices, seminar rooms, a sq.ft. (12,800 sq.m.)), three storeys
theatre, dormitory rooms, and a cafeteria over a one-storey podium in similar
to serve residence students and others. architectural style and cladding to the
Library. It houses the main offices and a
• Administration Humanities Building number of departments of the Faculty of
(1973; 110,000 sq.ft. (10,220 sq.m.)), four Science, as well as classrooms.
storeys over a one-storey podium base,
clad in pre-cast concrete, containing • Research and Innovation Centre (2008;
offices and seminar rooms surrounding 168,500 sq.ft. (15,650 sq.m)), housing
an interior atrium space. It houses wet labs, dry labs and a lecture theatre.
the main administrative offices of the Primarily occupied by the Faculties of
University, the Faculty of Graduate Science, Engineering, Arts and Nursing.
Studies and Research, a number of
departments of the Faculty of Arts, and • College West (1973; 240,300 sq.ft.
Printing Services. (22,325 sq.m.)), a six-storey brown brick
clad building, housing the College West
• The Dr. John Archer Library (1968; Residence on the upper floors, and on
137,800 sq.ft. (12,800 sq.m.)), four the lower floors several departments of
storeys over a podium base with a the Faculty of Science, the University
central two-storey reading room. This is Bookstore, the University Club, the
one of the original Yamasaki buildings, of Saskatchewan Police College, Parking
a stripped down, faintly stylized Gothic- Services, and the Gabriel Dumont
inspired “modern” style. Institute.

Aerial photo of Main Campus and
Innovation Place

Plan of Proposed Main Campus
and Innovation Place as of 2014.
Toned Buildings are existing, white
buildings are proposed by 2011
Master Plan.

• Day Care Centre (1993; 6,400 sq.ft. (595 faced Tyndall stone, featuring glazed
sq.m.)), a one-storey residential style tower corners and pedestrian concourse.
building housing the Wascana Daycare Two twelve-storey towers, connected
cooperative. The daycare has undergone with an underground pedestrian
a major renovation in 2015/2016. concourse, flanked by five storey north,
south and east wings, housing 692
• Dr. William Riddell Centre (1996; residence beds in apartments and dorm
282,000 sq.ft. (26,200 sq.m.)), a two- rooms. The north-south wings curve to
storey pre-cast concrete and glass reflect the shape of the Academic Green
building, the main social hub of the promenade.
campus, housing a food court and
commercial spaces, the Students’ Union, • Campion College (1967; 61,700 sq.ft.
many Student Service offices, and the (5,730 sq.m.)), four storeys over one-
Faculty of Fine Arts, including both storey podium clad in pre-cast and
an “environmental” and a proscenium in situ concrete. It houses Campion
theatre, with parking for 100 cars. College, a Jesuit College federated with
the University.
• Education Building (1969; 225,300 sq.ft.
(20,930 sq.m.) plus in 2002 a 5th and • Luther College (1971 plus extension
6th storey; 68,000 sq.ft. (6,300 sq.m); 1991; 113,400 sq.ft. (10,535 sq.m.)),
totaling 293,300 (27,230), five storeys two and four storey complex housing a
above a one-storey podium; upper residence, cafeteria and Luther College,
storeys clad in light pre-cast concrete, a Lutheran college federated with the
lower podium base clad in exposed University.
aggregate concrete. This building
houses the Faculties of Education, • First Nations University of Canada
Engineering, Administration, and (2003; 140,000 sq.ft. (13,000 sq.m.))
Social Work; Information Services; the unique, curvilinear, cantilevered terraced
Department of Media Production and four storey building housing the First
Studies; AV Services; classrooms; and a Nations University of Canada, designed
large auditorium. by Douglas Cardinal. Exterior clad in
split-face Tyndall Stone.
• Centre for Kinesiology, Health and
Sport-CKHS (2004; 260,000 sq.ft. • Central Heating Plant (1967; 28,800
(24,150 sq.m.)) two-storey metal panel sq.ft. (2,675 sq.m.)), distinctive and
and glass building with a triple gym architectural award-winning pitched-roof
with spectator seating, classrooms, building housing the central heating and
laboratories, lecture theatres, a running cooling equipment for the campus.
track, the Dr. Paul Schwann Centre,
sports medicine, physiotherapy, • Emergency Energy Centre (2004;
movement studios, and 204 car parking. 4210sq.ft. (391 sq.m.)) one and a half-
storey building housing four generators.
• Physical Activity Centre (1967;
95,600 sq ft. (8,880 sq.m.)), two-storey • Maintenance Building (1972; 38,700
high volume building clad in pre-cast sq.ft. (3,595 sq.m.)), and Greenhouse
concrete. It appears as a “box” over a Gas Technology Centre (2002; 35,000
one-storey podium. This building houses sq.ft. (3,250 sq.m)), three-tiered glass
the Faculty of Kinesiology and Health and metal-clad addition on the west end
Studies, including gymnasia and pool. of a one-storey brick building partially
depressed into the grade on the north
• Paskwaw and Wakpa Towers (2004; side. It houses Facilities Management,
317,500 sq.ft. (29,500 sq.m.)), are including Central Receiving, and
finished externally with buff and grey, Greenhouse Gas Technology Centre labs
split face Tyndall stone and buff, sawn and offices.

• Student Engineering Garage (1992; • Titanium Building, Innovation Place
1,300 sq.ft. (120 sq.m.)), for student re (2004; 4250 sq.ft. (395 sq.m.)), three-
search. storey metal clad pilot plant facility
housing the Titanium Corporation Inc.
• ISM Building, Innovation Place (1990;
86,200 sq.ft. (8,010 sq.m.)), two- • The Terrace, Innovation Place (2000:
storey “high-tech” glass and aluminum 124,000 sq.ft. (11, 500 sq.m.)) a three
building housing Information Systems storey Tyndall stone clad building, with
Management offices. This was the initial a unique central glass Rotunda reaching
building in the University’s research park. almost four stories in height to a large
round skylight. It is a multi-tenant,
• Two Research Drive, Innovation Place multi-purpose building focused on the
(1994 and 2008; 71,000 sq.ft. (6,600 information technology industry. It is
sq.m.)), three-storey “high-tech” glass the focal point and signature building of
and aluminum frame building housing a Innovation Place.
number of small research entities.
• Saskatchewan Disease Control
• Petroleum Technology Research Laboratory, Innovation Place (2010:
Centre, Innovation Place (2000; 113,000 sq.ft. (10,500 sq.m.)). The SDCL
70,000 sq.ft. (6,500 sq.m.)), three-storey building was constructed for the Ministry
tyndall stone and metal clad office/ of Government Services and the Ministry
laboratory/pilot plant facility houses of Health. The four story building houses
the Saskatchewan Research Council, collaborative work spaces, flexible lab
a number of University of Regina environments, and sustainable design.
institutions, and the PTRC.
Main Campus:
Research and Innovation
Centre, 2008

View South of Main Campus: 1970s (top) ; 2014 (bottom: credit: Bryan Schlosser, Leader-Post-files
Aerial photo of Main Campus and

Innovation Place

2.4 Campus Infrastructure • Paths: The path system within the
main campus area provides a number
The campus infrastructure consists of of pedestrian routes between building
roads, paths and underground utilities entrances and other destinations. Some
including piped steam for heating and roads have sidewalks, many do not.
chilled water for cooling, water, gas, sanitary There is also a trail system along the
sewers, and storm drainage. lakefront which connects into the larger
Wascana Centre trails.
• Road Systems: The campus is served
by two primary roads: the looped • Heating/Cooling Service Tunnels: A
perimeter University Drive north, east, tunnel system extends from the central
south and west, and Research Drive. heating plant to service most of the
Secondary routes feed into parking lots campus buildings.
and building entrances.
Existing Campus Roads

and Parking
Surface Parking
Underground Parking

• Storm Drainage: The main campus • Utility “Corridors”: The major
drains through two trunk lines directly underground utility corridors parallel the
into Wascana Lake and does not west, north, east and south drives. The
interconnect with the City system. The west and south drives corridors also
lake therefore acts as a storm water include a high-pressure natural gas line
management facility. which should only be realigned if it would
result in major campus planning benefits.
• Sanitary Sewers: The main campus
system ties into the City system on the
west side. The College Avenue Campus
system ties into the City system on
College Avenue.
Existing Campus Utilities
Storm
Water
Sanitary
Power

2.5 Landscape courts east of CKHS. In a 2002 joint project
of the University of Regina and Wascana
The University is located within Wascana Centre Authority, extensive landscaping
Centre, which is one of the world’s occurred as a result of 288 mature trees
foremost examples of an extensive planned being relocated from the central campus
landscaped development area. Parts of areas to less developed landscaped areas,
the campus were landscaped over fifty including the north-south pedestrian spine,
years ago in the initial enthusiasm at the University Drive South, East Loop Road,
establishment of Wascana Centre and are First Nations University of Canada, and
today great assets of the campus. These Lot 17. Other relatively recent landscapes
are the areas facing the lake and Wascana of note are the entrance garden to the
Parkway as well as, to a somewhat lesser Riddell Centre, the Research Park Drive
extent, the treed areas south of Campion streetscape, and the Academic Green and
College and the surrounds to the fields and Residence landscapes.
The Maturing Campus

Landscape

Established Landscapes
Mature Landscapes
Existing Main Campus: Valued Landscapes

2.6 Pedestrian Concourse System
The drawings above and on the next

page show the ground and podium level
pedestrian concourse system of all the
buildings within the University Drive
perimeter road. This provides a sense of
the interior connective system, as well as
the relationship of the building interior with
the exterior. The Residence buildings are
connected below grade to allow emergency
access into the Academic Green.
The Existing Pedestrian
Concourse:
Podium Level (above)
and Interior System
(below)

2.7 Other University Facilities sq.ft. (185 sq.m.), leased in Woodland
Academic Centre, SaskPoly), off-campus
• Technology Development Centre locations for the Faculty of Social Work.
(Grant Road Fire hall transferred to They house offices, classrooms, and
University in 1991; 6,600 sq.ft. (613 communications labs.
sq.m.)), one-storey timber construction;
an incubator research facility • Cypress Hills Field Research Station
accommodating University Research - near Fort Walsh National Historic
Facilities. Site (1973; 1640 sq.ft. (150 sq.m.)),
three University trailers on leased
• Community Education Centres - Saskatchewan Government land house a
Saskatoon (3000 sq.ft. (280 sq.m.), wet lab and living accommodations.
leased in Innovation Place University
of Saskatchewan), Prince Albert (2000
Cypress Hills Inter-

Provincial Park, home
of the University’s Field
Research Station

3.0 Planning Strategies
This section provides the planning strategies which are the

key directives for the future development of University of
Regina.
The strategies are set out in three groups: treated. The group concludes with priorities
for early development initiatives.
3.1 - General: This group of strategies deals
with the overall philosophy and approach to 3.3 - Implementation: The third group
campus development. deals with implementation of the plan: ways
in which the principles can be effectively
3.2 - Form and Organization: This group incorporated into future development
of strategies relates to the site plan or efforts, and ways in which the plan itself can
development pattern. It begins with be kept relevant and up to date.
the establishment of campus size, and
proceeds through enhancements of the The strategies form a cumulative whole.
physical environment, the basic structure Each strategy builds on other strategies,
of parking, built form, landscape, roads, but by breaking the totality down into
transit, and pedestrian concourses, to ways defined topics, they can be examined (and
in which the two main outdoor spaces in potentially refined) independently.
the campus and research park should be

GENERAL STRATEGIES will embrace the dramatic and dynamic
beauty of the Prairie, recognizing a pride of
Strategy 1: A Prairie Place place in the natural setting and developing
an expression that is rooted in the
The University of Regina will natural patterns emanating from the local
develop as a “Prairie Place”. surroundings.
The 2011 Plan characterizes the Main The University also recognizes that ongoing
Campus as a “Campus in a Park”. Quite climate change is creating conditions that
rightly, this approach recognizes the location will make it increasingly difficult to sustain
of the campus within the verdant setting of traditional thinking about landscape design
Wascana Centre. The campus fronts onto and management. A positive response to
Wascana Lake and is surrounded by open rising temperatures and increasing drought
landscapes and parkways that generate an conditions will be the adoption of new
atmosphere that is almost rural in character. strategies that accept and work with, rather
The park-like setting of the campus has, than against, the forces and tendencies of
over time, stimulated the development of the natural prairie environment.
well-landscaped spaces and corridors within
the campus. The 2011 Plan recommends As a “Prairie Place”, the University of
that the Campus in a Park idea be advanced Regina will evolve towards a state where
in order to create a full range of outdoor landscapes offer shelter, comfort and
places where people will “linger, learn and a sense of scale, but in ways that are
be active within a park environment”. sustainable over the long term, and
expressive of local context and experience.
The well-developed, park-like landscapes
of Wascana Centre and the University In order to create a “Prairie Place”, there are
are valuable assets that are cherished by two primary groups of strategies:
all. Introduced by Thomas Mawson and
Fredrick Todd early in the 20th Century, The Natural Prairie Landscape
the prevailing landscape character of
Wascana Centre had its roots in 18th The natural patterns and features of the
Century Britain and Europe, where garden native prairie landscape offer a surprisingly
designers adopted a romantic, picturesque diverse palette of landscape forms
and painterly approach to the creation of and materials that can be incorporated
idealized landscapes. into existing campus landscapes, and
employed to develop new ones. These
Importing an approach to landscape design natural processes will become fundamental
from a distant land was an understandable components of a campus “Prairie Place”.
response to the rigours and, sometimes, Strategies will include:
unforgiving nature of the prairie environment.
The open, windswept and sun-baked • Maintain and enhance existing prairie-
vastness of the Prairie was countered by like places such as north of University
the development of landscapes that would Drive and in the vicinity of FNUniv;
create a sense of oasis and evoke images
of places that were gentler and more • Develop reserve lands as open prairie
nourishing. landscapes, or cultivate until required for
University purposes;
The 2016 Master Plan embraces the
thinking behind the “Campus in a Park” • Use native and hardy trees and shrubs
idea, but extends it to recognize the reality where possible;
of the larger Prairie setting that has been
and will continue to be so influential in • Use naturalized grasses and ground
the development of the University and its covers rather than imported turf;
context. Moving forward, the University

• Plant coniferous trees only for edge • Actively collaborate with First Nations
definition and wind abatement; to incorporate relevant symbols and
settings into the campus landscape;
• Express the prevailing horizontal
topography of the prairie; avoid the use • Embrace the use of campus lands
of berms; for food production and large-scale
cultivation where feasible;
• Reduce reliance upon irrigation;
• Where possible, maintain and develop
The Cultural Prairie Landscape long view corridors from the campus out
into the open prairie;
The prairies have been inhabited for many
centuries, and reveal the values, practices • Through peripheral landscape
and technologies of those for whom it was development, maintain the sense of the
home. Some evidence is subtle, such as Main Campus as a discrete, compact
the traces of First Nations peoples. Other “prairie town” set in an open landscape.
evidence, such as the layout of fields
and roads, and the signs of agricultural The process of transforming the campus
cultivation, is clear and unmistakable. into a recognizable “Prairie Place” will
The cultural dimension of the prairies is consist of many small steps undertaken
fundamental and should be incorporated over a number of years. It is, as much as
into the making of a “Prairie Place”. anything, a way of thinking that places
Strategies will include: value on natural and cultural character
of the local context, and that recognizes
Express the orthogonal prairie survey that working with, rather than against, the
pattern in the layout of buildings, sports natural processes of the local context will
fields, parking lots, and other primary open realize real benefits in the short term and will
Main Campus (1960s) at spaces and built form; achieve true sustainability in the long term.
the boundary between
City and Prairie

Strategy 2: The Main Campus
and the Knowledge Corridor
The Main Campus will continue
to be consolidated as the focus
of academic and related activity.
The southerly part of the campus
will continue to be developed as
a major research park. A portion
of the Wascana East Lands will
be held in reserve for future
university growth.
A Consolidated Main Campus
The name “university” implies a community

of scholars which relies for its strength
on the exchange of information, the inter
change of ideas, and peer review. These
fundamental activities are enhanced by
close contact among members of the
community. The simple convenience of The Main Campus as Part of the Knowledge
Corridor
classrooms, faculty offices, research labs,
the library, and study spaces located close
to each other and to residences, as well The First Nations University of Canada
as the proximity of many scholars and (FNUniv) is located to the east of the Main
diverse fields of study, enhance the quality Campus on lands to be dedicated as an
and efficiency of teaching, learning, and Indian Reserve.
research. A student’s life is enriched when
the University’s offerings are close at hand. This institution is a special case, since it
will not fully comply with the principle of
At this stage in the University’s growth, the consolidation. FNUniv has chosen to favour
Main Campus will remain as the primary an enhanced sense of identity (obtainable
location for the University’s academic, through a separate site with Reserve status
cultural, social and recreational functions, and distinctive architecture) over close
which, with few exceptions (First Nations connection to the rest of the campus. It will,
University of Canada, Maintenance Building, therefore, remain somewhat isolated from
Research, and Sports Fields), fit primarily other campus buildings for a considerable
within the University Drive roads. Further period of time. In the long term, however, it
growth on the Main Campus will be through will become more adequately connected as
intensification, infill development and dis the rest of the campus grows toward it.
placement of non-essential land-uses.
Federated Colleges
Two of the federated colleges, Luther
and Campion, occupy the eastern part of
the Main Campus. Any expansion of the
Colleges will occur within close proximity.

Campus East other meeting places will be complementary
Lands in Wascana East immediately to those on the Main Campus and located
adjacent to the Main Campus will be leased for easy shared use.
or transferred to the University for future
reserve. The base area will be approximately Lands south of Wascana Parkway,
at least 110 acres (45 hectares), which is previously assigned to Innovation Place,
the equivalent to land ceded to the first two have been returned to the University for
phases of the Research Park (112 acre/45 other uses, as yet undefined.
ha). Campus East will be developed in a
holistic way, providing the entire range of Saskatchewan Polytechnic (SaskPoly)
facilities/amenities (residences, recreational SaskPoly occupies land adjacent to the
facilities, classrooms, labs, etc.) that make University of Regina Campus East and as
up a University. such, extensive joint planning on these
lands will continue. A new road, pedestrian
Innovation Place Research Park and cycle route passing under the Trans-
The principal buildings of Innovation Place Canada Highway will improve connections
Research Park will be developed on sites between the University and SaskPoly even
in close proximity to the Main Campus to prior to development of the University’s
encourage a synergy of activities, and will Campus East.
include the integration of future academic
facilities. Community facilities in Innovation
Place such as food services, lounges, and
Proposed Connections
between the Main
Campus and SaskPoly

Strategy 3: Role of the College the heritage structures while upgrading
Avenue Campus them to current functional needs and
Building Codes.
The College Avenue Campus will
accommodate academic and The south wing of the Conservatory is
non-academic functions that structurally failing and is currently being
studied for potential demolition.
will reinforce the University’s
presence within the larger The expectation is that considerable
Regina community. redevelopment will occur. This development
will primarily be organized about an axis that
The College Avenue Campus is a great extends south from College Building. This
asset to the University in maintaining and pattern recognizes the heritage character
enhancing links between “Town and Gown”. of the existing buildings and protects the
It forms an identifiable location for viable unique College Avenue frontage.
extension programs, contains attractive
heritage buildings, and is conveniently The old Normal School has been developed
located close to the downtown core. The along with the CBC Building as the Canada-
major disadvantage is the high cost that will Saskatchewan Production Studio. The
be will be incurred to protect and preserve University is a not a partner in this venture.
College Avenue Campus
Existing Buildings
Future Buildings

Strategy 4: The Provision of may use a combination of approaches, but
Space this sequence of priority will be applied in all
cases.
Of the four basic ways of
providing new additional space This Campus Plan stresses that there must
— Improved Utilization, Reno evolve an appropriate balance between
development and open space. Development
vation, Infill and Expansion— for academic and other uses should be
the University will emphasize dense in order to use land efficiently,
consolidation (the first three) maintain a compact campus, and house
rather than expansion. a campus population that is large enough
to support a full array of services and
There are four ways in which a demand for amenities.
building space can be met. For each project
these will be investigated in sequence to At the same time, due regard must be
optimize land and plant utilization. First placed on the development of an open
priority will be placed on the most efficient space network that accommodates all
utilization of existing space, next, on the modes of movement, that provides the
renovation of existing space, and then on landscapes necessary to fulfill social and
infill development. Only when the poten recreational requirements, and that works
tial for these has been exhausted should with campus buildings to project a dignified
expansion beyond the broader campus and forward-looking public image.
perimeter be considered. Particular projects
Potential Sites for Main

Campus and Innovation
Place Park Expansion
Existing Buildings
Future Buildings

Strategy 5: Quality, Permanence means that all new and renewed facilities
and Economy should be flexible, functional, innovative and
maintainable, as well as cost effective over
The University is committed the long term. Proper planning and resource
to quality, permanence and allocation are essential to supporting and
life-cycle economy in building sustaining this commitment to the quality of
the buildings and landscapes on campus.
and landscape construction,
maintenance and renewal. Strategy 6: Sustainable
Development
To many faculty and students, it seems that
the University is always short of building The University intends to
space and other facilities and that funding provide community leadership
to meet even urgent needs is often long in responsible and effective
delayed. Consequently, the tendency to
push for as much space as possible (and
environmental action through
sometimes more than the budget will allow) sustainable developments that
can lead to the development of inferior are land, energy, and waste
facilit ies and the deferral of both facility efficient.
maintenance and landscape improvements.
Capital “savings” can often lead to much Creating a sustainable campus is essential,
higher ongoing operating and maintenance and should be what measures and defines
costs. quality on campus.
To counter this, the University has now As an educational servant and intellectual
formally adopted the approach that quality leader in Regina, Saskatchewan and
should precede quantity. This implies a beyond, the University should, through
three-part commitment: first to high qual example, point the way to “a form of
ity design, construction and maintenance development that meets the needs of the
with greater attention given to the life cycle present without compromising the ability of
costs; second to the eventual replacement future generations to meet their own needs”
of temporary facilities; and third to the (1984 Brundtland Commission definition of
planned renewal of aging and inferior facili Sustainable Development). By establishing
ties in all aspects of the University’s physical and implementing explicit development
plant. strategies, and by arousing the awareness
of its members to environmental concerns,
When balancing quality and quantity, the the University of Regina will join with
emphasis must be placed on quality. This other major institutions and corporations
in providing leadership in responsible,
Design=1.5% effective, and sustainable environmental
action.
Construction=16.5% The successful programs now in place or

being developed should be encouraged,
and new initiatives undertaken. Planning for
and managing environmentally sustainable
development should permeate all facets of
campus life and must go beyond just doing
Comparative “less damage”, and head toward improving
expenditures for a typical Operating=82% the environmental, social, and economic
building over a 35 year integrity of our community through our
life cycle. The smaller,
interventions.
earlier costs greatly
influence the larger, later
costs.

Six goals for sustainable development for Strategy 7: Respect for Land
this improvement are: Value
• Protect ecosystems and support The increasing value of land,

restoration of natural systems; both on and adjacent to the
campus, will be reflected in
• Promote development of livable
communities;
project cost analyses and be
accommodated through in
• Use resources efficiently, including creased development density.
energy, water, land, and materials;
The campus land base is extremely valuable
• Create healthy indoor environments; now, and will only increase in value as po
tential users compete for fewer developable
• Move toward eliminating waste and sites and as the rising investment in facilities
pollution for the life cycle of the project; and infrastructure increasingly constrains
redevelopment. Future development will
• Consider alternatives to fossil fuels. recognize that campus land is a very
valuable resource to be carefully managed
These sustainable development goals are and developed as new requirements
reinforced throughout the Campus Plan. The emerge; short term needs should not be
University will seek ways to improve transit permitted to compromise long term possi
service (Strategy 21) and efficiently manage bilities.
our parking resource (Strategy 20). The
University is committed to a consolidated The land value component will be taken
compact campus (Strategies 7, 14, 15, into account in assessing the costs of
and 29), and creating a safe and vibrant development. The increased land values
community (Strategies 8, 9, 12 and 13). As will be reflected by infill development and
well, before proceeding with the design of a increased densities. The result will be a
project, an outline of its potential “campus limit to sprawl and a compact, walkable
quality” impacts will be undertaken (Strategy central campus as described in Strategy 14:
27). Compact Campus Size.
Green roof on the

Research and Innovation
Centre
(credit: P3 Architects)

Strategy 8: Constituent and campus”—displays and exhibitions of
Communal Needs artifacts or ongoing work of the constit
uent user groups which are accessible
Projects established to meet and visible from the major public routes
the needs of a particular through the campus.
constituency will also meet
• New projects can repair poorly designed
the communal needs of the parts of the campus. Preferred sites
University as a whole. should therefore be in areas which will
benefit from, rather than be degraded
The program and design of new projects by, new development, provided effective
must meet the needs of the constituent user functional relationships are respected.
group but have an equal obligation to make
a contribution to the campus environment, • The form and organization of buildings
and to serve the University community at can help to shape and animate the
large. From the very outset, all projects common indoor and outdoor campus
must seek to balance the constituent and spaces. The location and treatment
communal needs. of building entrances, the interior and
exterior windows and the indoor circu
Projects should contribute to the campus in lation routes of each building project
a number of ways: should be designed to contribute to the
continuity of pedestrian movement and
• All building programs should include to the social amenity of the campus.
such communal facilities as general in
structional space, study space, lounges,
and easy access to food services. They
should also promote “windows to the
Communal and
Constituent Project
Requirements

Strategy 9: Wayfinding and Specific interventions will include:
Signage
• Create a clear and distinct north/south
Designs for improving and east/west campus structure with
wayfinding will concentrate clear circulation routes and an easily
on two parallel fronts: the understood sequence of spaces;
legibility and imageability of the • At key locations, develop iconic

campus; and a comprehensive landmark buildings with distinct building
information and signage system. elements such as towers, corner
treatments or materials;
Campus legibility refers to the ease with
which information about the environment • Develop building frontages along the
can be grasped. Problems of legibility University Drive loop with expressed
usually relate to three factors; environmental entrances and clear linkages to
image, ambiguous or inaccessible infor movement routes and destinations;
mation, and high density information which
leads to overload conditions. Image refers • Expand the interior pedestrian linkage
to the ease with which a place is visualized network;
and comprehended spatially.
• Encourage the development of
The legibility of a complex urban setting, like interior circulation routes that provide
the campus, is connected to the recognition a continuous visual connection to
of five basic elements: landmarks, paths, recognizable landscapes and buildings
districts, edges and nodes (focal places). beyond;
Many aspects of these five basic elements
are presented in other sections of the • Create distinctive landscapes and
campus plan. The physical ordering of places that serve as landmarks and help
the campus to increase its legibility is guide the user through the campus.
fundamental to making a more navigable The existing Academic Green is a key
campus. example of such landscapes.
University Gateway at
Wascana Parkway and
University Drive South
(credit: P3 Architects)

A hierarchy of signage is determined on
• Develop a common palette of materials the basis of scale. At the upper level of the
(pavements, furnishings and lighting) to hierarchy, the University’s primary identi
distinguish key corridors and places in fication and information signs should be
the public realm; designed to be seen at long distance. The
signs must be bold, the messages must be
• Incorporate public art or water into simple and the scale must match the visual
the landscape to mark key places and competition of highway/roadway elements
nodes. within a driver’s cone of vision.
The University should work on two parallel By contrast, a building directory at the
fronts to improve wayfinding – carry out lower end of the signage hierarchy should
improvements to make the environment as be designed to be viewed by pedestrians
legible as possible and institute a campus- from a few meters away. This sign is smaller,
wide signage program. The one will require its messages can be more numerous and
a concerted effort to upgrade the spatial complex, recognizing that the viewer has
connectedness of the campus, mainly the opportunity to stop and scan a range
through landscape improvements. The other of information. Similarly, appropriately
will require the design and implementation sited parking directions and parking space
of a visually and typographically coordinated signage needs to be incorporated.
information and signage system, together
with a full range of digital, electronic media. In spring 2014, the University successfully
completed the first step in the strategy
Campus signs can be divided into two with the design and construction of the
groups – “Getting There” and “Being There”. Main Gateway Project at the main Kramer
The first refers to signs on the approach Boulevard/University Drive South and
routes, which identify the University and Wascana Parkway entrance. The Gateway
direct people towards primary destinations at the entrance to University Drive North
and entrances. The second refers to is currently under construction and is
directional and identification signs and other scheduled for completion in Spring, 2016.
information elements within the campus
interior, primarily related to the local streets The university completed a Campus
and driveways, and the indoor and outdoor Wayfinding Study in 2015. The first
foot paths. phase of projects are proposed to begin
A Consistent Family implementation in 2016.
of Sign Elements
(BONDcreative, 2016)

Strategy 10: Campus Safety • The more people using and seen to be
using the campus and its public places,
Buildings, landscapes and especially at night, the safer it will feel.
lighting will be designed and
managed to promote personal • The design of the public domain, from
the overall layout to the details, is critical
safety. to ensuring personal safety on the
campus. A clear spatial structure with
The development of a campus which is a legible hierarchy of identified routes
perceived to be safe for all users should and spaces, will provide users with the
be a high priority for all future projects on orientation and clarity necessary to move
campus. While safety is a fundamental through the campus with comfort.
moral responsibility of the University, it can
have other important benefits as well. A • Appropriate lighting and well designed
safe campus will be used by more people plantings are essential for maintaining
and for longer, enhancing the vitality of visibility, both day and night in the
the University and extending the effective outdoor spaces. Similar standards
utilization of facilities. should apply to the design of public
indoor spaces.
Greater campus safety requires a high level
of corporate commitment on the part of • Use plant materials and furnishings in
the University, and the integration of safety ways that maintain clear lines of sight.
issues into all functions and operations
including physical design. • Parking facilities, building entrances and
indoor and outdoor pedestrian routes
Good environments are safe environments. should be clearly identified and well lit.
Personal safety is not a single dimensional
issue (with a single dimensional solution), • Buildings should define important public
but is one measure of a viable environment, indoor and outdoor routes and spaces,
along with legibility, convenience, economy and have windows that provide casual
and vitality. Hence, many of the planning surveillance of the public spaces.
strategies in this Plan will contribute to
the development of a safer campus. • Visible emergency telephones and other
These planning strategies are consistent means of alert should be distributed
with the principles for safe environments throughout the public areas.
associated with Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED):

Strategy 11: Named Places relevant but non-specific names include
the Dr. Lloyd Barber Academic Green, the
Naming buildings, streets and Dr. William Riddell Centre and the Dr. John
landscapes enhances their Archer Library.
identity and prominence, and
Acting upon the recommendations
thereby reinforces the campus coming out of the Truth and Reconciliation
spatial and landscape structure. Commission, the University of Regina
Strategic Plan commits to ensuring that
Most memorable places, which people “First Nations and Métis cultures are
care about and endow with meanings, reflected in all aspects of campus life,
have names which affirm their identities. in everything from our curriculum to our
It is also important for wayfinding to have campus design and the ceremonies that are
differentiated and identifiable places and part of Convocation.”
paths. All the main walkways, roads,
communal spaces, and buildings should be An initiative relevant to the Master Plan is
named places which can be identified in a the use of indigenous vocabulary to name
signage system. streets and buildings on the campus. This
is a commendable effort that should be
Names should be selected to avoid extended to include named gardens, court
ambiguity and to anticipate changes in yards and plazas.
function or building tenancy. Examples of
Nameable Buildings,
Streetscapes and
Landscapes

Strategy 12: Community Life on culture is increased. With more people come
Campus more diverse interests and requirements,
and with more people come larger pools of
The University will continue participants who are ready and willing to
to provide amenities and support (financially and otherwise) diverse
opportunities that will encourage opportunities.
people to stay on campus for The campus now offers a good range of
longer periods each day. opportunities. More should be developed.
Dr. William Riddell Centre provides a rich
The great universities, which foster a strong and well-supported environment that is
sense of affection and loyalty from their most conducive to social activity. New
alumni, are those which have considerable campus residences attract hundreds of
“campus life” beyond the instructional students, who form a permanent population
experience. What students most appre of people looking for both academic and
ciate about these campuses is the sense social stimulation. Sports and recreational
of community nurtured by social, cultural, amenities on campus could be enhanced
recreational and sports activities. As the further with more recreational opportunities
University population expands, the ability and links to the Wascana Centre trails from
to provide the amenities and facilities the Physical Activity Centre.
necessary to support a vibrant campus
Community Life:
Convenient Pedestrian
Movement & Facilities
to Encourage a Rich
Campus Culture

Strategy 13: Universal Access ignores the needs of people with disabilities
at the risk of reducing mobility and comfort
The University is committed for many, and at the risk of incurring very
to a concept of universal high costs for retrofitting at a later date.
accessibility for all parts of the
There is a strong coincidence between
campus and all buildings where environments that are universally accessible
people may be expected to and those that meet the requirements of
study, work or live. other strategies in this Plan. Among the
more important Plan strategies for building
The impact of the physical environment design are entrances which are clearly
on persons with special mobility, visual, visible, ground floors which avoid the need
hearing and other abilities is so great for ramps by relating directly to exterior
that the University intends to make the grade, and parking and drop-off areas close
accommodation of those with special needs to and visible from significant entrances.
a high priority. The effective accommodation Mixed use and development intensification
of the people with physical challenges is will reduce distances between facilities, dis
a basic responsibility of the institution, tances which are magnified for those with
but will also benefit the University in two disabilities. A clear spatial structure with
important ways: first, those who might generous routes will help clarify circulation
otherwise be restricted from the campus and improve orientation.
will be able to more fully participate in and
contribute to campus life, and, second, The detailed design of exterior public
the measures necessary to accommodate places and movement corridors should also
people with disabilities usually create an acknowledge the needs of the disabled.
environment which is better for all people Sidewalks and walkways should be
- more “legible”, more accessible, more dimensioned to accommodate wheelchairs
comfortable and more efficient. and other walking aids, and should be
smooth textured and free from obstructions.
Although some specialized measures will be Gradients on pedestrian surfaces should
required, the development of an accessible be controlled and ramps avoided wherever
environment need not involve exorbitant possible. Special attention should be given
costs. What is required is an attitude to snow clearing and storage requirements.
toward building and landscape design and Exterior lighting should be designed to
maintenance founded on awareness and incorporate the needs of the visually
sensitivity. The evaluation of and selection impaired. Signage should be provided in
between otherwise equal design options consideration of universal access.

FORM AND ORGANIZATION which criteria are ranked. But decisions
about the value of components must be
Strategy 14: Enhancing Physical made every time the accommodation
Assets of University needs results in a physical
change to the campus.
New development will preserve
the existing assets of the Priority should be given to the repair or en
campus and favour the repair hancement of problem sites and facilities
rather than to the modification of high
of problem sites, avoiding the quality ones: the University’s physical assets
replacement or modification should be enhanced, rather than diminished,
of good quality buildings and through redevelopment.
landscapes.
The open space framework is highly
The existing assets of the campus—the important. Existing landscape and open
buildings, landscapes, roads and utilities space assets have great value, while the
—are of tremendous value to the Uni creation of new open spaces and linkages is
versity, but not all components have the a priority to create and support a compact
same value. Their comparative value is a campus structure.
composite of their functional suitability,
heritage quality, aesthetic quality, adapt On the College Avenue campus, the
ability, physical condition, operational cost protection and preservation of the heritage
and replacement cost, and is usually hotly buildings is the University’s number one
debated because of the different ways in priority.
Existing Buildings
Existing parking lots
Valuable Landscapes & Mature
Trees
Symbolic Central Open Space
Sports/Athletic Fields & Courts
Land Lease or Agreement
Physical Assets of the Campus

Strategy 14: Compact Campus Support. The core portion of campus is
Size protected and preserved for undergraduate
academic activities, with research and other
Compact future development activities located towards the periphery.
will support a sense of cohesion
and provide efficient pedestrian The diagrams on the following page are
all at the same scale, and illustrate the
movement between campus building “footprints” of the University of
facilities, in particular movement Regina and other western universities. The
between classrooms within the current compact form of the University of
10 minute class change period. Regina is a great advantage and should be
maintained.
All of the existing academic buildings are
within a ten-minute walking distance and
many are within five minutes of each other.
This represents a great advantage for the
University, especially considering the rigours
of the long winter months. Buildings that
are in close proximity to one another can
be economically connected to provide
continuous indoor movement systems.
Even where interior connections exist, many
people will choose to use outdoor routes
in a compact campus since they are not
long and often protected. Students benefit
to having classrooms within the 10 minute
walk, and can consider when building their
academic program.
The Compact Campus - the 10 min. and 5 min.
A compact, tightly knit campus should Walking Distances
remain the goal of the University of Regina.
Accordingly, expansion at the periphery of
the campus will only be considered when
other possibilities have been exhaust
ed. Preference will be given to central
development sites which can be connected
directly with the indoor concourse
circulation system. Of these, the highest
priority will be placed on those sites where
new development could link presently un
connected buildings and create a cohesive
Main Campus grouping. When absolutely A Mostly Connected Main Campus
necessary, expansion at the periphery will
be directed towards self-sufficient functions
such as Maintenance and Administrative

Campus Form and
Scale Comparisons
University of Regina University of Alberta
University of Manitoba University of Saskatchewan
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / DRAFT_02 / PAGE 43

Strategy 16: Spatial Structure buildings, extends south from the Academic
Green to a focal space at the heart of
The spatial structure of the Innovation Place. Green linkages, not so
campus will be reinforced and well defined, extend east from the Academic
embrace all frontages. It is Green to University Drive East and Fist
Nations University beyond. Two additional
composed of a central focal north/south green corridors intersect these
space, pedestrian spines north, eastern corridors, and extend to University
east and south, and a series of Drive North and South.
courts and plazas that provide
greater balance between internal Future campus development should protect
and reinforce this Inner Campus structure.
and external spaces, circulation A clear campus structure not only creates
and linkages. spaces and corridors that are beautiful and
useful, but also simplifies wayfinding and
The original planners of the University
facilitates efficient movement. Existing and
envisioned a compact, academic cam
future buildings should also be designed to
pus with a primary orientation towards
animate the spatial structure. Heavily used
the lake. The campus would consist of
interior spaces should overlook key outdoor
pavilion buildings linked by a continuous
spaces and buildings should have frequent
podium that defined a series of internalized
doors connecting indoor and outdoor
courtyards. The building complex was to
spaces. Campus spaces that are animated
be approached primarily from the north and
are cherished, enjoyable and safe.
only secondarily from the center.
Future campus development should also
This original idea was soon eclipsed by the move towards the development of an Outer
development of large, freestanding buildings Campus that will present a welcoming face
remote from the original grouping. Campus to the larger community and respond in
development since that time has sought to a positive manner to Wascana Lake and
reconnect these buildings and establish a the varied built fabric that makes up the
continuous interior circulation system. context of the campus. A key feature of
the Outer Campus will be a series of open,
The campus today consists of a central landscaped forecourts that “reach out” to
focal open space, the Academic Green, embrace the prairie landscapes of the Lake
defined by what are, in effect, the backs and the romantic landscapes of Wascana
of the original buildings. A mall, defined by Parkway.
Spatial Structure of the Original 1962 Campus Plan

Spatial Structure

Strategy 17: Landscape The Parkway Frontage - For people
Structure arriving by vehicle, the first views of the
campus are of the buildings and landscapes
Campus landscapes will reflect facing Wascana Parkway. The public
and reinforce the spatial image of the University will be reinforced
structure of the campus. by developing landscapes and building
forecourts that reach out and embrace the
informal landscapes of the Parkway.
The outdoor spaces and corridors
created by the buildings—the campus The Lake Frontage - The visual and
spatial structure—will be enriched and physical connection between campus and
made meaningful through landscape lake will be strengthened. Primary building
development. Roads, walkways, plazas, forecourts and circulation corridors will
lawns, and plantings will be created to help extend across the road and embrace the
make the campus functional, beautiful, prairie landscapes near the lakes. Over time,
sustainable, enjoyable, comfortable and these landscapes will adopt a degree of
safe. Landscapes, together with buildings, order reminiscent of the ordered landscapes
will also create an image of the University of the prairies in the Regina region.
as a place renown for learning, research,
community and knowledge. Prairie - The lands to the north and east
of the Main Campus will be developed
There are six primary landscape types, each and managed to reference native prairie
with their own role and character: landscape. Over time, exotic species will
be replaced by hardy, native species, and
Core - The Core landscapes constitute and lawns will evolve into fields and meadows of
identify the Inner Campus. Heavily used and native grasses.
visually prominent, these landscapes are
the most highly developed and managed. Athletic Fields - While athletic fields usually
Consisting of focal spaces (the Academic have specific functions, they should also
Green) and linear corridors (University be attractive and comfortable landscapes.
Mall), the character of these landscapes is Plantings should define the fields as
generally formal and disciplined. spaces and provide climate mitigation for
spectators.
Forecourts - The Outer Campus spaces
formed by buildings will be developed as Parking Lots - Parking lots should be
forecourts that welcome and receive people considered first as landscapes. While their
approaching the campus, and project a primary purpose is vehicle storage, parking
positive image of the campus. Along the lots are very visible and heavily used
north and west frontages, the Forecourts by pedestrians. Parking lots will feature
will reach out to embrace the unique extensive plantings and effective storm
landscapes of Wascana Parkway and the water management facilities.
Lake. The most important precedent is the
courtyard north of the Library, which was
one of the first formal spaces developed on
the campus.
Wascana Parkway - The first impressions

of the University are formed largely by
Wascana Parkway, which serves as the
primary means of access to the campus.
Wascana Parkway consists of well-
developed landscapes with informal
plantings of shrubs and both coniferous and
deciduous trees.

WASCANA LAKE
Y
KWA
R
A PA
CORE
CAN
PRAIRIE
WAS
FORECOURT
FIELD
PA R K I N G
Landscape Structure

Strategy 18: Road and Path loop—the First Nations University of Canada
Structure because of its special architecture and
identity requirements, Petroleum Technology
The road structure will reinforce Research Centre, Greenhouse Gas
primary loops around the Technology Centre, Maintenance Building
campus and research park, and Heating Plant, which are not primary
academic destinations.
with internal secondary roads
providing access to individu There is considerable conflict between
al buildings and service areas. pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles on the
Pedestrian paths will form a finer portion of University Drive South just east of
network linking parking lots, the Parkway. Students on foot from Lot 15
to various buildings have no logical place to
building entries, and recreation cross the road and consequently crossings
al trails. The cycling network will occur at random. The solution is to realign
extend throughout the campus University Drive West to the University
with shared and dedicated Centre frontage road and extend it in to
cycling facilities. Innovation Place Research Park via Lot
15 to form a crossroads, which will form a
natural and safety-controlled crossing place
The structure of buildings and open spaces for pedestrians.
is served by a network of roads and
walkways. The organization of roads and A formal off-street multi-use path is
walkways serving the Main Campus and proposed on University Drive, providing a
Innovation Place are somewhat different, re separated facility for those on bike and foot.
flecting the unique requirements of each.
Innovation Place must function in a way
The academic campus is a destination for similar to other business areas in Regina,
students, faculty and staff who, having where there is a greater need to provide
arrived, generally have no further need for direct vehicular access to building entrances
a vehicle. Once there, however, people for staff, visitors, couriers and others.
must be able to move freely on foot
between buildings and other destinations. The walkway system in Innovation Place
Recognizing this, a perimeter road with is also more closely aligned to that of a
associated parking lots is developed around conventional business park. The key com
the perimeter of the Main Campus. Within ponents are sidewalks along both sides of
the loop, buildings are accessed primarily the streets and pedestrian connections to
on foot, both indoors or out. There is a need the trail system around the campus and
to keep the building group compact and well beyond.
served by pedestrian routes and attractive
landscapes so that the convenience of
getting about on foot or bike outweighs
the convenience of using a vehicle. Three
buildings fall outside the University campus

Road and Path Structure

Strategy 19: Bicycles modal pathways that will provide ready
access to all buildings and facilities.
The use of bicycles to access These pathways work in tandem with the
and move around the campus campus roads themselves, which should be
will be encouraged. developed to serve as shared routes.
Bicycle circulation through the campus

Bicycle-riding is becoming an increasingly is impeded by the existing at-grade
popular means of transportation, even well connections between buildings; most
into the colder seasons. It is also healthy notably, there is now only one way for
and environmentally friendly. cyclists to access the Academic Green. New
building connections in the areas east of
The City and the University are together the Academic Green should be designed to
creating networks that promote safe and maintain the free flow of bicycles (and other
convenient cycling throughout the City vehicles).
and to the campus. These consist of a
combination of multi-mode pathways Adequate amounts of bicycle parking is
through linear park systems, and on-street essential to accommodate the demand and
facilities that include both designated routes to reduce damage to railings, trees and
and exclusive bike lanes. other features. Bicycle parking should be
provided adjacent to all building entrances
At the campus scale, the University is and other destinations.
creating a continuous network of multi-
Existing Bicycle Routes (City of Regina, 2015)

Bicycle Routes and Parking

Strategy 20: The Pedestrian More recent developments (including
Concourse System College West and the Language Institute)
have been added to the ends of the existing
The indoor pedestrian chain of connected buildings, and have
concourse system will be reduced the distances between the con
extended to connect all campus nected and independent buildings. The
Riddell Centre as an infill building and the
buildings. It will be at ground subsequent construction of the link between
level wherever possible, with Education and Riddell Centre have provided
access to the outdoors and nat further extensions to the concourse system.
ural light. The concourses will
be designed as a series of con The CKHS incorporates the Physical Activity
Centre within it and ties it to the Education
nected indoor urban “streets” Building.
– vital and sociable meeting
grounds for the entire university Similarly, an extension on the west and
community. to the south of Campion would enable a
connection to the existing Physical Activity
From the beginning, a major organizing Centre.
priority for the campus layout has been
a system of wide pedestrian corridors (or The exception to this sequence is the First
concourses) at ground floor level, connect Nations University of Canada, which will
ing through each successive building to the independently and incrementally develop its
next, to form a continuous system of indoor own concourses, using the same principles
“streets”. but without a direct link to the other campus
buildings. Allowance should be made for a
The earliest buildings had one-storey podia possible long-range connection between
connected together to make the indoor the two systems under or over University
system at ground level and an outdoor deck Drive East.
system at the second level. This second
level pattern was abandoned in the 1970s. As the system further develops, the
University must consider the value of
Many of the first generation buildings (Ed internal linkages alongside the value of
ucation, Physical Activity Centre, Campion exterior open spaces and experiences.
and Luther Colleges) were sited as indepen
dent structures with the expectation that An accessible and permeable campus
subsequent phases of development would is important for movement by other
provide the missing links. Slower growth means. Linkages should not occur across
than was initially expected had left three of campus streets or open space pedestrian
these four buildings unattached and isolated spines. This will allow pedestrian and bike
from each other and from the original movement on campus and provide greater
campus buildings. choice for service and emergency vehicle
access. If connections do happen across
exterior spaces, they should be transparent
and easily accessible.

The Existing Pedestrian Concourse System
The Proposed Pedestrian Concourse System

Strategy 21: Parking • Manage demand through pricing.
The University will manage • Manage demand with incentives for

demand for parking and environmentally responsible options such
prudently move from as walking, biking, and car-pooling.
reliance on surface parking • Build underground (preferred) and/or

to more structured parking multi-storey parking structures.
and alternative modes of
transportation. • Develop off-campus parking lots and
implement a shuttle service.
The preferred mode of travel to the campus,
as in the rest of Regina, is by private All of these options pose challenges.
car. The University has traditionally met Managing demand may not meet the needs
increased demands for parking by providing given the expected growth. Remote parking
relatively low cost surface lots adjacent would be unpalatable during our winters
to buildings. This response was possible (although it has been forced on other cold-
while the campus remained modest in size climate universities such as Minnesota).
and had an abundant supply of land within
convenient walking distance of campus Structured parking, being the most efficient
buildings. use of land for parking, is expensive but
provides the greatest convenience for users,
The availability of parking for students, with the shortest and most comfortable
faculty and staff has been identified as a trip between vehicle and destination.
competitive advantage for the University Some of the most successful parkades
of Regina. Ensuring parking availability for include complementary academic or retail
faculty and staff has been described as a uses in order to better integrate them into
priority for the Parking Services Office by the surrounding campus fabric. Below
senior administration. grade structured parking is the preferred
arrangement given the public realm and
However, large surface parking lots are open space benefit this parking type
unattractive and consume large amounts provides.
of land. They conspire against the creation
of a compact campus, and compete with When new buildings are built on existing
academic development for limited land parking lots, they should include the
resources. Furthermore, continuing campus replacement of existing parking stalls
development only stimulates the demand lost to the footprint of the project, and
for parking, which becomes increasingly accommodation of additional parking needs
difficult to provide. associated with the requirements of the
new users. Experience at other universities
As further campus growth occurs, there are that have gone through the evolution from
choices: surface to structured parking suggests that
once structured parking on campus reaches
• Manage demand by encouraging the use a critical mass it becomes accepted as the
of public transit. norm.

Surface Parking
Temporary Parking
Parking Structure
Underground Parking
Parking on Campus

The substantially higher initial cost to Strategy 22: Public Transit
construct structured parking requires a
modified funding formula. Rather than The University will seek ways to
assessing individual components, the total improve public transit service in
cost to provide parking (both surface and terms of frequency, location of
structured) should be balanced against the
income generated by the entire system.
stops and layout of routes.
The Campus Plan strategy, therefore, is as Transit provision and usage follows either a
follows: vicious or virtuous circle—reduced service
reduces ridership; alternatively, increased
• Manage demand by providing incentives ridership provides the financial underpinning
for car-pooling and public transit. for better service. The challenge for the
University is to start a virtuous circle to
• Ensure that existing parking lots are increase transit use and decrease parking
efficiently used. requirements. There are three strategies for
increasing transit use at the University.
• Improve the appearance of existing
surface lots through planting and First, the University will improve rider
upgraded lighting. comfort and convenience. This will include
developing a campus road system that
• Increase surface parking on the few facilitates efficient routing coupled with
places available and street parking where frequent stops, by providing heated waiting
possible but only where landscape areas (generally within existing buildings),
character is not compromised. and by providing direct access from transit
stops into the pedestrian concourse system.
• Construct multi-level parkades; A transit hub located towards Wascana
incorporate other uses at grade level to Parkway will provide a focal point for transit
improve the pedestrian domain. operations and a comfortable place for
waiting customers.
• Develop a pricing model that distributes
the higher costs of structured parking Second, it will work with the municipality to
over a term less than the life of the find ways to establish more frequent service,
project. The post-mortgage parking and to modify routes to favour University
revenue would then generate a surplus origins and destinations. The creation of a
that could be used to finance additional “Knowledge Corridor” with an increased
parking investments. concentration of potential riders will help in
this regard.
• Give consideration to providing parking
under every new building; do not Third, develop an incentive program to both
extend the parking structure beyond the encourage transit use, increase carpooling,
building’s footprint. bicycle use and campus walkability, and
discourage the use of private vehicles.
• Build parking structures with one level
below and one level above ground In 2015, University students voted to gain
to protect views from buildings and access to a universal transit pass (U-Pass)
surrounding streets. that provides a convenient travel option. The
City of Regina has planned increased transit
• Consider developing parking east of the service to the University, beginning in 2016.
Trans-Canada Highway and connecting
it to the Main Campus with an underpass
or overhead pedestrian bridge.

Transit System

Strategy 23: Materials Handling pedestrian walkways, but should do so on
an “as permitted” basis. A good example
Service areas will be located are the driveways between Paskwaw and
where the public realm will Wakpa Towers, and the CKHS loading area.
not be impacted. Non-road These routes should be redeveloped as
pedestrian-priority surfaces.
service routes and areas will be
designed for pedestrian priority. New development should be organized
such that service areas and loading
The movement of goods and refuse to docks are removed from heavily traveled
and from buildings is a major activity that pedestrian routes. At issue is that most
involves vehicles moving through many campus buildings are designed with “fronts”
parts of the campus and accessing virtually on all sides, reducing the opportunity for
every building. While all buildings have at concealed service facilities. As illustrated, a
least some servicing requirements, buildings “streets and blocks” development pattern
with food services generate the highest could be implemented, whereby by the
levels of activity. perimeter of the block is developed as
the primary public realm, and servicing is
Where service vehicles must share routes contained within the block’s interior. This
with pedestrians to access buildings, those pattern will also usually permit more than
routes should be developed to reflect one building to be serviced from a single
pedestrian priority. Some buildings on the location.
campus cannot be directly accessed from
the campus road system. In these cases,
service vehicles may be required to use
Materials Handling

Strategy 24: Athletic Facilities The campus’s current outdoor facilities
range from the formal (e.g. tennis courts,
The University will provide the outdoor beach volleyball court,
easily accessible playing fields/ competitive soccer fields, ball diamond)
outdoor athletic facilities/ to the informal (the field west of the tennis
court, the Academic Green, and other large
recreational areas and preserve open spaces used for recreational and
existing fields where possible. social activities). A balance of informal and
formal facilities should be maintained to
The University sees athletics and recreation offer a variety of choices to the University
as an essential adjunct to more formal community.
academic and social activities that occur
on campus. Lands and resources should Properly accommodating core University
continue to be allocated to maintaining and activities that occur between September
upgrading these important outdoor facilities. and April and offering the facilities
Sports fields require large land areas, some equivalent to that available at universities
of which are conveniently located on the of the size and maturity of the University of
main campus site. New development should Regina is the highest priority to encourage
preserve or enhance existing fields where winter activity (for instance a new arena);
possible. Establishing an Athletics Precinct providing facilities mainly used in the
will support the development of a place summer is a lower priority. A competitive
on campus where recreational facilities are track with artificial turf and spectator seating
focused, along with an Athletic Green and is included on campus, providing quality
Urban Parkette. As described in the East facilities for track and field, football and
Campus Demonstration Plan, additional soccer.
fields should be built on the University
lands east of the Trans Canada Highway to
establish a balanced distribution of facilities.
Athletic Facilities

Strategy 25: Animating the In contrast, Paskwaw and Wakpa Towers
Academic Green embrace the Academic Green with curving
wings that reveal the interior pedestrian
Buildings and landscapes street behind glass; people can see both
surrounding the Academic Green inside and outside, and there are well-
will be modified to animate the placed doors that physically connect the
buildings to the Green.
space and realize its potential as
the physical and symbolic focus Where possible, the older buildings should
of the campus. be modified to increase permeability. These
improvements would create a more direct
The defining feature of a University is relationship to the interior pedestrian con
often its central open space: the “Yard” course system and activity centres in the
at Harvard, the “Bowl” in Saskatoon, the surrounding buildings—such as lounges,
“Quad” at Stanford, the “Main Mall” at conversation areas, and eating places—
UBC. Each gives a sense of cohesion which could spill outdoors during good
to the campus, a symbolic focus, and a weather.
memorable image that comes readily to
mind when thinking of those Universities. Landscape improvements should also be
The University of Regina has the Academic undertaken. The smaller landscape spaces
Green and over the last decade has adjacent to buildings and near entrances
improved it by right sizing it and introducing should be provided with benches, shade
a graceful oval pathway lined with trees. and other amenities to create gathering
places and to offer attractive views from
An important feature of all successful focal inside the buildings, especially during the
spaces is that there is abundant visual and winter months.
physical connection between the space and
adjacent buildings. New stair connections should be made to
the podium level. Some of them could be
Designed to face Wascana Lake, the original incorporated with the construction of the
surrounding buildings turn their backs on new infill buildings attached to the existing
the Green and usually have a limited visual podia.
relationship between interior and exterior.

Academic Green

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Plan and a summary of the Planning
Strategies are incorporated into the
Strategy 26: Plan Continuity Wascana Centre Master Plan. In compliance
with The Wascana Centre Act and bylaws,
The Campus Plan is approved major amendments require public review,
as University policy by the Board and all amendments must be incorporated
of Governors as well as by in the current Wascana Centre Authority
Master Plan.
the Wascana Centre Authority
Board of Directors, and main The second method is a General Review,
tained as an effective develop publicly conducted at an approximate
ment directive through continu five-year interval. The update of the Plan
ity of responsibility, consistent is intended to follow the update to the
Campus Strategic Plan. If possible, it is also
application, and regular updating preferred to align the timing of the University
and review. of Regina Master Plan update with the
update to the Wascana Centre Authority
To ensure that the Campus Plan remains Master Plan. As part of the General Review,
an effective basis for development, the the Plan’s policy status is confirmed by
University should establish administrative the Board of Governors and the Wascana
structures for its approval, application and Centre Authority Board of Directors. This
updating. review will include a re-examination of the
Plan principles, and the incorporation of
An Approved Campus Plan. Plan Amendments made in the preceding
The Campus Plan, particularly the principles period.
and strategies, is approved as University
policy by the Board of Governors. Strategy 27: The Project
Development Process
Applying the Campus Plan: Continuity
and Interpretation. Facilities Management The project design and approval
is to ensure that every project is measured
process will ensure compliance
against the Campus Plan at all stages of the
Project Development Process. at all stages with the Campus
Plan. The process will invite uni
Updating the Campus Plan. versity community input at the
The Campus Plan is capable of responding planning/programming stage
to changing needs over time. It therefore
and whenever variations to the
requires periodic updating.
Campus Plan are proposed.
The first method of updating is a Plan
Amendment which is triggered if it is found
that a proposed project would contradict the Future campus development will occur
Plan in some way but seems otherwise to incrementally through projects of two
be desirable. If, after review (including uni sizes and two types: major and minor and
versity community consultation) it appears constituent and communal. This strategy
the contradiction should be removed by deals with major projects, which general
amending the Plan, this should be formally ly exceed $1,000,000, have major siting
done. implications, affect several departments
and/or involve extensive changes in space
Modifying the Plan to meet the needs of use. Constituent projects focus on the
a project should only be undertaken after needs of a particular constituency or user
examining implications beyond the project, group such as a library, academic build
and should require formal amendment of ing, or residence. Communal projects focus
the Plan by the Campus Planning Steering on “public works”: roads, landscapes and
Committee. The Long Range Demonstration utilities, together with general and support

services, such as study, eating and recre possibilities for future expansion or facili
ation. Many communal needs will be met by ty modification;
the incorporation of communal services into
constituent projects. • Expected demand on campus utilities
and parking;
All major projects, whether communal
or constituent, generally go through five • Budget envelope for the building and
stages. associated landscape;
• Selection/Initiation; • Outline of site requirements and

locational considerations;
• Planning and Programming;
• Impact on users and functions currently
• Design; occupying sites being considered for the
new project; and
• Construction; and
• Negative and positive campus quality
• Operation and Maintenance. impact parameters.
Crossing the threshold from one stage to This report should be used as the basis
the next should require that the project meet to determine whether the intent of the
the planning and program requirements project is in conformance with the Campus
of both the constitue
nt group and the Plan and other University priorities. If it is,
University at large. the project proceeds to the next stage.
If it contradicts the Plan in any way, two
It should be noted that the approach courses of action are available in the next
described here is a linear “design-bid-build” stage: first, modify the project so that it is in
step by step process. In larger projects, conformance; second, modify the Campus
so called “fast track” approaches may run Plan to accommodate the project.
some of these steps in parallel for several
major components of the project. The 2. Planning and Programming
management requirements and checklists in During the second stage the detailed
this strategy must still be followed, whether building program is established, the site
the tasks are undertaken in sequence or in selected, the budget confirmed or modified,
parallel. and the project incorporated into the
Campus Plan. The products of this phase
1. Selection/Initiation include:
At any given time there will be a number
of major projects considered necessary • Program of constituent and communal
by various interests in the University. Not requirements;
all of these will enter the implementation
stream. Those that do will have reasonably • Statement of compliance with or
secure funding expectations and will be proposed revision to the Campus Plan;
approved by the President and the Board
of Governors. At the selection/initiation • Site selection;
stage, projects should be defined in a short
“Project Intent” report which includes the • Relocation strategy for existing site users
following seven topics: and functions;
• Outline of indoor and outdoor space • Effect on campus utilities and parking;
requirements (both constituent and
communal); • Project budget for building, parking,
landscape and utilities;
• Anticipated requirements and

• Outline of campus quality impact; and • Landscape design and rationale;
• Draft project design guideline and • Construction cost estimate for each of
massing study. the above; and
The “Project Design Guideline” will focus • Evaluation against Program, Campus
on the Campus Plan Strategies and site Plan, Project Design Guideline, and
conditions relevant to the particular project. Budget.
3. Design 4. Construction
The Project Design Guideline should Project construction is monitored to ensure
be reviewed in draft by the project that the content and intent of the design are
design consultant. Comments and find realized, and that the project remains within
ings resulting from preliminary design the established budget.
explorations should be incorporated into the
finalized Project Design Guideline. It should 5. Operation and Maintenance
then be adopted as University policy and Following completion, periodic inspections
should govern the project design. are conducted by Facilities Management to
ensure that the project is meeting the needs
The design stage for major projects should of its major users, and to assess how com
include a report at three essential phases: munal aspects of projects are being operat
schematic design, design development, and ed for the benefit of the whole University.
working drawings. These separate reports
are necessary to ensure that the adequate Strategy 28: Project Design
examination of alternatives has been Checklist
undertaken at all levels from site selection
and general massing through to materials Design Guidelines will be de
selection and contract documentation. veloped for each new project
to define its specific planning
At each of these three design phases, the
following report sub-sections should be re
context and bring into focus the
quired of the prime design consultant: objectives of the Campus Plan.
These include a design check
• Site and context analysis; list to which project designers
should explicitly respond.
• Architectural design and rationale;
• Structural design and rationale; During the design phase, the designer
is expected to respond to the criteria in
• Mechanical design and rationale; the Project Design Checklist and present
evidence as to how they have been
• Electrical design and rationale; addressed at each major step of the design
process. The Project Design Checklist in this
• Commissioning design and rationale; Plan should be read in conjunction with the
Project Expectations Checklist included in
• Site utilities design and rationale; the Wascana Centre Authority Master Plan.

Project Design Checklist
Site Use and Organization Roof and/or eave lines should work with
those of adjacent buildings to reinforce
Land use efficiency should be maximized. the cohesion of building groups.
New buildings which do not fully utilize
their sites should be designed to permit Building facades should work with adja
future expansion. cent facades to reinforce the clarity of the
public network and the cohesion of build
New buildings should be planned to assist ing groups.
the rationalization of the infrastructure.
Building/Open Space Relationships
Buildings should be located so that
functional relationships between buildings Buildings and associated open spaces
are improved. should establish a mutually supportive
relationship in which indoor and outdoor
Response to Context spaces animate and are connected to
each other.
Buildings and associated open spaces
should be designed to enhance the larger Buildings should define open spaces as
compositions created by groups of build distinct spatial volumes with a strong
ings and landscapes. sense of identity and place.
New buildings should be considered Buildings should enhance the clarit y, safe
as opportunities to “repair” holes and ty and efficiency of campus streets and
discontinuities in the campus structure. pedestrian routes.
Buildings should be organized on Existing high quality open spaces should

the site to make new functions and be protected and enhanced.
circulation routes compatible with those of
neighbouring buildings and open spaces. New open spaces should form part of a
continuous network.
Depending on their locations, some but
not all buildings should be designed as Building faces adjacent to public open
landmarks to identify strategic locations spaces and thoroughfares should be
within the larger campus structure. The treated as fronts and should activate the
design of all buildings should support the public environment.
general fabric of the campus. The distinc
tion between landmark and other build The ground floor should relate directly to
ings refers to their urban roles rather than grade for ease of access.
their architectural quality — all buildings
should demonstrate the highest standards Buildings facing outdoor space should
of planning and design. have windows and other openings which
relate directly to the space.
Building Envelope
Response to Climate
Buildings should generally be
appropriately massed to the scale and Important public spaces, both indoor and
image of the campus, and to capitalize outdoor, should benefit from the sun.
on the economies and convenience of a
walk-up format.
Rain shelter should be provided in high
use areas around entrances, and where
heavily traveled pedestrian routes run par
allel to building facades.

Walkway and plaza gradients should be Building entrances should provide a sense
minimized to reduce slipping when icy or of transition from outside to inside.
snow-covered.
Building massing should reflect the
Circulation ordering of entrances.
Interior pedestrian routes should be linked Lobbies should be generous and designed
to provide logical connections through to provide visitors with the information and
buildings and to provide occasional views cues necessary for orientation.
for orientation. The continuity of exterior
pedestrian routes should not be compro Transparency and Territoriality
mised when buildings are closed.
The building should be designed as a
Interior connections between buildings figurative or literal showcase so that the
should be on-grade except where vehic public has a clear sense that the building
ular crossing is required. The indoor and is occupied and feels “open”.
outdoor pedestrian systems should fit well
together.
“Private” or secure facilities should be
separ ated from public areas of the build
Interior circulation routes should be easily ing.
understood. They should be hierarchical
with the most important routes corre
Areas of the building requiring se
sponding to the most public parts of the
curity should be securable without
building.
compromising the viability of public spac
es or the continuity of public circulation
Buildings and associated open spaces routes.
should be universally accessible.
Location of Public Facilities
Building Entrances
Public facilities should be located adjacent
Building entrances should be easily to public thoroughfares and open spaces,
identifiable, and should address primary and preferably on the ground floor.
public open spaces and thoroughfares.
Public lounges and eating places should
Building entrances should be ordered with be in sunny locations.
the most important addressing the main
avenue of approach.
Interior public uses should be capable of
expanding out of doors during favourable
The ordering of building entrances should weather.
correspond to the ordering of public
spaces and circulation routes within the
New projects and renovations should be
building.
designed to provide personal safety as
well as to impart a sense of comfort and
All building faces adjacent to major public well-being in users.
open spaces and thoroughfares should
have entrances.
Personal safety is a broad spectrum
requirement that is basic to all aspects of
Building entrances should be designed to the environment including spatial clarity
encourage lingering and meeting. and legibility, signage and orientation,
lighting and visibility, planting, paving
Building entrances should be open materials and winter walkability/mobility,
and prominent, encouraging people to as well as ramp gradients, safety railings,
approach and enter. traffic controls and safety alert devices.

Long Life/Loose Fit The detailing of buildings should be
designed to be read from close up.
New buildings should be capable of being
adapted to new uses and expansion as Exterior Materials
the needs and priorities of the University
change. Building materials should reinforce the co
hesion of related groups of buildings.
Architectural Expression
Building materials should reflect the
New buildings must reconcile many di building’s role as either a landmark or a
verse and often contradictory issues in fabric building.
terms of their architectural expression —
the “messages” they give about their role Building materials can reflect the identity
in the university. of the users, but should not be so specific
as to preclude a possible future change of
Campus buildings should express the use for the building.
dignity of the University’s time-honoured
mandate — the passing on of wisdom and Building materials should suit the light and
the quest for new knowledge. In this light, climatic conditions found on the campus.
campus buildings should express a sense
of permanence and durability, a sense of
Building materials should be selected
the university’s traditional roots and its
that will complement and harmonize with
historical continuity.
existing adjacent buildings, and with the
campus as a whole.
Further, campus buildings should also ex
press the university’s commitment to serv
Preference should be given to the use of
ing the community, and its responsibility
dignified and durable local materials such
to treat knowledge as a public resource.
as Tindall stone, which is currently used
To express this, buildings should be open,
on the campus and throughout Wascana
safe, accessible, welcoming, and familiar.
Centre.
Scale
Building materials, details and
ornamentation should support the
The scale of the building should relate to indigenization policies contained within
the scale and size of the human body, to the University’s Strategic Plan.
make approaching and using the building
a comfortable experience.
Landscape Quality
The scale of building elements should

Landscape should be treated as critical
correspond to the various distances from
to establishing visual cohesion across the
which it is viewed.
campus.
The silhouette of buildings should be

Landscape design should receive the
designed to be read from afar, either as
same level of attention and budget
members of a group of buildings or as a
stability accorded to buildings and infra
landmark.
structure.
The massing of buildings should be

Landscapes, like buildings, should be
designed to be read from the middle
designed to communicate “messages”
distance and should reflect the immedi
about the goals and roles of the university.
ate context and the predominant patterns
of the character areas in which they are
located. Landscapes should be designed with
respect to the level of maintenance they
will receive.

Servicing Building interior design should seek
to monitor carbon dioxide, use
Service areas should be located and a construction quality assurance
designed to efficiently support the management plan, use low emitting
building’s functions and operators’ materials, provide thermal comfort, and
requirements. maximize daylight and views.
Service areas should in general be located Site disturbance should be reduced by

away from public open spaces and protecting and restoring open spaces and
thoroughfares. reducing the development footprint.
Where integrated with pedestrian uses, New buildings and landscapes should be
design treatment should reflect the pedes designed to minimize storm water runoff
trian use. rates and quantities as well as improve
storm water quality.
Some specialized service areas may be
located in or adjacent to public spaces Landscape should be designed to reduce
if they most effectively demonstrate the the heat island effect on roofs and non-
building’s purpose and function, and roofs.
if they are compatible with pedestrian
activity. Lighting should be designed to minimize
light pollution.
Technical Performance
Landscaping should be designed to
Building projects should be subjected to minimize the need for irrigation.
life-cycle costing to determine the best
fit between capital costs, operating costs Building should be designed to incorpo-
and maintenance costs. rate innovative waste water technolo-
gies and reduce water use.
Building design should reduce
maintenance costs. Buildings should be designed to optimize
energy performance, to use renewable
Building design should strive to exceed energy sources, and to reduce ozone
the requirements of the National Energy depletion
Code of Canada for Buildings by at least
25%. Green power, such as solar and wind
energy, should be considered as an
Environmental Quality alternative to conventional energy
sources.
Buildings should not be permitted to
emit unacceptably noxious or otherwise Projects should be designed to reduce
unpleasant fumes or gases. construction waste; reuse existing
resources; and use recycled materials.
They should also strive to use rapidly
The design of building systems should be
renewable materials and certified wood.
sensitive to noise impact on adjacent use
areas.
Projects should be designed to maximize
use of local and natural materials to
Noise-generating activities should be
minimize energy used in delivery and
located within the building which should
packaging.
be designed to protect users in other
buildings or in public open spaces.
Projects should be designed to encourage
cultural and social habits that support
sustainable communities.

Strategy 29: Space Allocation provide resources to carry out assessment
work. Space Allocation Studies will be used
The extensive inventory of as a management and planning tool for
space serving the diverse assessing space use efficiency.
needs of students, staff,
Facilities Management will maintain a
and the public is owned by master inventory of space allocations at
the University, managed by the University. Individual units must inform
Facilities Management through Facilities Management of any changes in
recommendation to the Space use or temporary reassignment to other
Allocation Committee, allocated units.
equitably among users, and is to 4. Effective use of space

be used efficiently. Space allocated to a unit is to be utilized
efficiently.
The following principles are used as a guide
in administering space allocation. Reference To avoid unnecessary duplication or
to Faculties and Administrative Departments underutilization of this scarce resource,
in this strategy is intended to be general and space should be shared as much as
includes all the different types of Academic practical. This principle should apply to
and Administrative Units at the University of meeting rooms, classrooms, laboratories,
Regina. shops, common areas and other functional
areas where sharing would be realistic and
1. All space is owned by the University reasonable.
and allocated for a definite or indefinite
period of time to academic or University staff is not entitled to more than
administrative units
one office per staff member. The University
Although space is allocated to and may provide office or research space to
managed by the different Faculties and Professors Emeriti or outside agencies
Administrative Departments, all space is provided they and their work are directly
owned by the University and operated by associated with the academic programs of
Facilities Management. With this ownership, the University and space is available within
the University has the responsibility to the unit.
keep all spaces in good order in terms of
maintenance, services, cleaning, etc., and to 5. Approach to space allocation
provide the appropriate amount and type of Facilities Management provides a proactive
space for approved University activities. scenario-based and consultative approach
for space availability identification and plans
2. The University has the sole for future development. Recommendations
responsibility to allocate space for space allocation are considered based
Space is a scarce resource that must be upon consolidation of units and building
allocated in accordance with the priorities rationalization.
and plans of the University rather than solely
in response to the constituent needs of an Current policy dictates that space allocated
individual unit. Space is allocated to specific to a faculty or department cannot be
users and will be analyzed periodically by taken from that faculty or department and
Facilities Management. reallocated without extensive consultation
with the faculty or department (or in the
3. Space must be allocated equitably case of Classrooms, the Registrar). These
among Users groups may voluntarily trade or give up
For all users and all categories of space, the their allocated space. Where appropriate,
Council of Ontario Universities (COU) space Facilities Management may act as broker to
standards will be used as a guide to assess assist faculties and departments to achieve
space needs. Facilities Management will beneficial space solutions.

6. Roles and Responsibilities • The new arena, likely coupled with a
Facilities Management acts in a staff role parking structure east of CKHS;
for the space allocation process. The role
requires the collection of requirements, • Additional housing in the northeast
determination of needs, assessment of quadrant;
competing interests, building of consensus
where possible, and production of a • Expansions east and west of Luther
recommendation on the allocation of space. College, and west of Campion College;
Recommendations on space allocation • Expansion north of Ad/Hum.

will be presented to the Space Allocation
Committee who may accept, ask for Other sites are identified in the
additional information, revise, or reject these Demonstration Plan that are consistent
recommendations. with the Planning Strategies, but will only
proceed should unforeseen requirements
Strategy 30: Campus Expansion arise. These include:
Priority
• Additional housing in the northeast
Each new building will be sited quadrant;
and designed to contribute to
the campus-wide pedestrian • Expansion north of the Classroom
Building;
system and the ordering of the
overall spatial structure. • Expansion west of the Riddell Centre;
The capacity of the Main Campus to • Expansion of the First Nations University
support new development in the mid- of Canada.
term is only limited by the need to satisfy
the goals and objectives set out in the Significant development within the Main
preceding Planning Strategies. Proposed Campus on sites other than those identified
developments that cannot contribute to the in this Campus Plan may impact the social
overall quality of the campus as set out in or aesthetic quality of the environment,
the Strategies should be reconsidered or or compromise necessary functions such
rejected. as circulation, parking or servicing. At
such time as major requirements for new,
Based on known priorities, the following additional space arise, consideration will
projects are likely to proceed in the be given to developing a new East Campus
foreseeable future. east of the Trans-Canada Highway.
• Expansion south from the Education

Building;

4.0 Demonstration Plan
This section presents an illustrative demonstration of

one way in which the principles and planning strategies
might be implemented. The plan illustrates those projects
that will most effectively meet the planning objectives,
and support projected growth in the mid-term or next
generation (25 years) and long-term (full build out of the
University Lands).
For each campus planning area, a schematic plan illustrates possible locations for future
projects that can accommodate growth beyond projected requirements while continuing to
support the planning objectives.
Following the description of the planning areas is a discussion of the composite

demonstration plan which presents both the mid-range (25 years) and long range (full build
out in 100 years similar to the Wascana Centre Master Plan). These two planning horizons
will first identify those projects and changes that are likely to happen within a generation,
then thosethat are more difficult to predict with certainty, but are what the University should
protect for.

4.1 Wascana Parkway Frontage Many of the preceding Master Plans
have explored options to strengthen the
The Wascana Parkway Frontage is the relationship between the University and the
current “reception area” of the campus. parkway with built form and open space,
This is the part of the campus most open to and to negate the visual impact of surface
view by the greatest number of people and parking, but none have fully resolved what
is also the direction from which the campus the ultimate solution should be. To this end,
is most commonly approached. It currently the long-term demonstration illustrates a
contains the visitor parking area, bus stop, slight modification from the 2011 plan.
and “main entrance” to the University via
the Dr. William Riddell University Centre, To satisfy the principles and strategies
College West, the Research and Innovation of the 2016 plan update, a series of
Centre, and the Classroom Building. open spaces are recommended (for the
most part expansions of existing smaller
The 2011 Plan recommended two gateway courtyards), reaching towards the parkway
elements, one at each corner of University and are framed by future new buildings
Drive and Wascana Parkway. The first (not shown in the mid-term). This series of
gateway, located at Kramer Boulevard/ three well defined spaces would be more
University Drive South and Wascana open through to the parkway, creating
Parkway was completed in 2014. It includes windows into the campus that diminish its
a signature new sign, new sidewalks and perceived inward focus. The relationship
pathways, new lighting and upgraded of University Drive West would adopt a
landscaping. The project has enhanced similar arrangement as the College Avenue
accessibility, improved safety and given Campus does with College Avenue, where a
the University a marquee entryway at wide planted landscape separates the two
the busiest access point to its main roadways.
campus. The second and smaller gateway
at University Drive North and Wascana
Parkway is under construction and
scheduled for completion in 2016 as part of
the reconfiguration of the Wascana Parkway
intersection.

Main Campus: Wascana Parkway Frontage

4.2 The Wascana Lake Frontage In the 2011 Plan, the original courtyard
designed by Yamasaki and Church as
The finest landscape and the greatest part of the Dr. John Archer Library project
visual amenity can be found along the was granted a reprieve. The 2003 Plan
frontage facing Wascana Lake. The primary suggested to introduce a new building on
orientation of the Main Campus from the the courtyard to relocate servicing and
initial Yamasaki and Church Master Plan materials handling from the Academic
(1963) was towards the lake. The initial Green. The 2011 Plan revised this proposal
buildings, ceremonial entrances, and open and suggested that new buildings to the
spaces were arranged to provide views east and west of the courtyard would
and vistas to the north. As stated in all frame what would be repositioned as
previous campus Master Plans, construction the Ceremonial Green (in contrast to the
of buildings north of University Drive is Academic Green), and provide additional
prohibited. Any new development south of animation and breathe new life into this
the Drive should maintain and extend the cultural heritage landscape. The 2016
present building and landscape patterns, Plan enthusiastically carries forward this
and support the principles and strategies recommendation.
within this plan.
The demonstration for First Nations
In the current demonstration plan a number University of Canada has not changed in
of future developments are illustrated: this edition of the campus Master Plan.
a new landmark building to the north However, the college has submitted a notice
of the Classroom Building and Lecture of intent to expand in the near future. Please
Hall, expansion to the Administration and see the more detailed description that
Humanities Building, further development of follows within this chapter.
the Residence Precinct, and expansion to
First Nations University of Canada.
Main Campus:
Wascana Lake Frontage

4.3 Dr. Lloyd Barber Academic
Green
it is also the central service yard for the
Library. This function will continue until the
possible relocation of servicing and material
First proposed in 1982 and implemented handling as part of future development
in 2004, the Dr. Lloyd Barber Academic along University Drive North.
Green is the largest and most heavily
used open space on the main campus. The university community has introduced
The demonstration shows the Academic three community gardens as part of
Green as a clearly defined central space, Regina’s Edible Campus initiative. The
surrounded by buildings and plantings RPIRG (Regina Public Interest Research
which also create smaller courtyards in Group) Green Patch, located south of the
the corners of the larger volume. The Dr. John Archer Library, is a source of
landscape of the Academic Green is simple sustainable, locally grown organic food –
and flexible. The paths are rationalized part of a campus movement for community
so that their functions for service and engagement and sustainable development.
emergency vehicles and pedestrian routes The other two gardens are associated with
are maintained. The service vehicle entrance the Language Institute and First Nations
is from the east, between the Residence University. The Edible Campus launched on
buildings. Spaces around the periphery March 28th 2012 as a response to the need
provide different opportunity for a range for urban centres to invest in sustainable,
of uses and activities, places for prospect, locally grown, secure food sources. A U
respite, and refuge. of R student has been hired to coordinate
the planting, maintenance, and harvesting
One of the anomalies of the Academic of the garden, as well as to coordinate the
Green as the centre of campus life is that volunteers and distribution.
Main Campus:
Academic Green

4.4 East-West Pedestrian Mall the following pages, which animates the
pedestrian corridor and is an important
The East-West Mall is an organizing green draw and amenity for the colleges, the
spine that extends from Wascana Parkway residences, and the University as a whole.
at the west end of the University of Regina The plaza fronting the Mall creates a new
Campus, and east to the First Nations gathering place and pedestrian hub, geared
University. This spine is an important to creating a home environment for the
corridor as it spans and connects the west residences and colleges and contributes to
campus, the central academic campus establishing a critical mass for the campus.
core, the east campus colleges, and First
Nations University. The passage through The main east-west pedestrian path is
the Mall should remain external and the enhanced with special paving and furnishing
experience of spaces are defined by a such as benches and pedestrian scaled
narrowing and widening of the view corridor, lighting, and is landscaped to provide year
which provides an element of surprise as round seasonal interest and protection from
you move through the sequence of spaces. the winter climate. Iconic buildings and
All new buildings have frontages onto the architectural features such as the residential
Mall, and have main entrances, pathways, towers and the Campion College church are
and podium connections to the Mall. A enhanced within this landscape. As well, art
key new component for the east campus is an integral part of this landscape and can
is the at-grade commercial use within the be used to enhance the element of surprise.
structured parking facility, as illustrated in
Main Campus:
East-West
Pedestrian Mall

4.5 North-South Pedestrian Green Internal connections through Luther and
Campion Colleges should provide a high
As demonstrated in many previous plans, level of transparency to visually unite the
the North-South Pedestrian Green is a two sides of the buildings. Other links
critical component of the public space across this key spine should be above or
framework and the easterly green spine below grade to support active transportation
through the campus. The current landscape routes through campus. The future arena
is the perceived south-east edge of the should set back appropriately from the
campus, but as development moves Kinesiology building to satisfy the Protected
eastward this open space will provide Spaces Strategy and provide a suitable
critical pedestrian and cycling connections scaled edge to this important corridor.
to the East-West Pedestrian Mall, the
Academic Green and between the sports
Main Campus: fields and the Wascana Lake frontage.
North-South
Pedestrian Green

4.6 Athletics Precinct parking to the arena should make use of the
existing Kinesiology parking garage ramp
As with many of the previous Master designed to accommodate connections to
Plans, the current demonstration illustrates the east. The arena project should provide
new development to the east of the a weather protected pedestrian connection
Centre for Kinesiology Health and Sport, to Kinesiology and the future above grade
with a possible future arena extending parking structure sited along the East/West
southeastward, preserving the existing Pedestrian Mall. The 2016 Plan carries
beach volleyball courts and outdoor tennis forward the 2011 plaza recommendation
courts. The arena frames the east side of towards University Drive South and
the generous North-South Pedestrian Green suggests that it could also serve as parking
that connects the future Stadium with the in the winter months. The plaza site also
Residential Precinct and intersects with the offers that the site could offer an alternate
East-West Pedestrian Mall. Below grade location for the possible arena.
Main Campus:
Athletics Precinct

4.7 Residential Precinct The 2016 Master Plan concurs with the
2011 Master Plan that this precinct will
At the northeast corner of the campus continue with a residential focus, but does
along University Drives North and East suggest a few adjustments to satisfy the
is the Residential Precinct. For several updated strategies, specifically related
decades most of the previous Master to landscape, phasing and servicing. The
Plan have illustrated new buildings in this orientation of the future building phases
area. The 2011 Master Plan proposed (anticipated only as part of the long-term
four large L-shaped buildings facing each demonstration) will be towards University
other to create a large shared open space Drive to maximize views towards the lake
oriented in an east-west direction. The and FNUniv. The Plan recommends smaller
suggested height for each building was 3 to building projects in future phases so that
4 storeys with two towers ranging from 10 issues complicated by scale are minimized.
to 12 storeys. The subsequent Residential Below grade parking should connect so
Precinct Master Plan refined the plan that shared points of vehicle access is
arrangement to have 4 larger buildings with possible. Any new buildings should ensure
greater density and more tower elements that they conveniently connect to the
with smaller courtyards oriented in a north- existing protected pedestrian network.
south direction. The first building project in Site new buildings to create servicing and
the Precinct—Kišik Towers—was completed material handling areas internal to the block
in the fall of 2015. At the time of this Master so that associated activities are not along
Plan, a below grade link to Campion College significant pedestrian routes.
is under construction.
Main Campus:
Residential Precinct

4.8 Campion College Campion and either North Residence
(Paskwaw Tower) or the Kinesiology Building
Built in 1967, Campion College was one to extend the weather protected pedestrian
of the first structures erected on what is network and connect Campion, Luther, and
now the University of Regina campus. the new residence (KišikTowers) to the rest
The building was originally designed to of the campus. Preferred link arrangement
accommodate support services for 600 is below grade to retain the public space
Campion students, a Jesuit residence and connections at grade, specifically between
offices for faculty and administration staff. the Academic Green and the primary east-
west open space link to FNUniv. Servicing
Immediately to the west of Campion College and materials handling for this new building
is a proposed expansion. This development could be from a shared dock at the
site is not new and has been included in Kinesiology Building, with access below
past Master Plans, but the possible program grade beneath the open space corridor.
is now better understood. This building
could become a centrally located Dining Between Campion and Luther Colleges, a
Hall with additional classroom space to small shared entrance building is illustrated
satisfy demand for Faculty expansion. at the location of the existing pedestrian
The proposed Dining Hall project timeline corridor. The intent of this structure is
is for completion by 2018, so finding a to visually and physically connect the
suitable location is highly important. The open space corridors on both sides from
University are in the process of developing Wascana Lake to the football stadium.
a consultant terms of reference to carry The structure should permit access from
out a more detailed study regarding space both sides so that those on foot may pass
requirements. through, adding another pedestrian route to
the campus.
The expansion, no matter the building
Main Campus: program, should include a link between
Campion College

4.9 Luther College be accomplished in close consultation with
the University of Regina and mindful of the
Luther College is one of three federated Campus Plan.
colleges on the University campus having
established a physical presence on Consistent with previous Master Plans,
campus in 1971, with the opening of an the current demonstration illustrates new
academic building and residence. The development along the northern edge of
academic building was expanded in 1992 Luther College, providing new academic
to incorporate more classrooms and office and non-academic space and pedestrian
space into its design. connections from Campion College towards
University Drive East. The opportunity to
As a college federated with the University have weather protected interior circulation
of Regina, Luther College expects to grow routes extend further east is a wonderful
both in terms of its teaching and research and worthy prospect, and one supported by
capacities. Luther College hopes to expand the students and faculty who travel to and
its facilities either on its own or, preferably, from FNUniv.
in concert with its sister Christian liberal
arts partner on campus, Campion College. All of these projects will further connect
Linking with existing and possibly new Luther College—for so long on the edge
pedestrian corridors is a major consideration of the campus—so it may become better
here as it is the idea that it can develop this integrated with the overall university
particular corner of the present University community.
campus. All of these considerations will
Main Campus:
Luther College

4.10 First Nations University Of
Canada
Nations University of Canada Strategic Plan
2013-2018” to guide the work of Canada’s
first university-accredited Indigenous
The First Nations University of Canada, institution of higher learning for the next five
formerly Saskatchewan Indian Federated years. FNUniv has enjoyed robust growth
College (SIFC), is unique in the world for and renewal and substantial progress has
being a First Nations controlled institution been made in the areas of governance
operated in close partnership with a and administration. This work will continue
major university. It reaches beyond the throughout the duration of this plan as
boundaries of its main campus, working FNUniv continues to strive for excellence.
in partnership with communities and
in conjunction with other educational FNUniv has expressed interest in having
institutions across Canada. It reaches a stronger physical connection to the
beyond the border of Canada and is rest of the University. In several previous
recognized around the world as a Centre plans, pathways to link with Luther College
of Excellence in First Nations education, and the future Residential Precinct have
research, and community development. demonstrated the intent to better connect.
The programs at the University foster the This Master Plan recommends that new
development and success of students development in the eastern part of the
through a holistic First Nations cultural campus should build towards University
approach to courses and programs Drive East before building north to provide
incorporating spiritual, emotional, and greater opportunities to connect, with an
physical, as well as intellectual capabilities. addition to Luther College being preferred
given it will join the internal linkage system
The building was designed to reflect the in the foreseeable future.
First Nations’ perception of man and the
natural world. At its ultimate state of Any development of a surface route from
development it will take the formation of the main building towards University Drive
a circle, encompassing a central Plaza East should minimizes its impact on the
designed for cultural and ceremonial landscape character of FNUniv. During the
gatherings. The northern segment built in term of preparing this campus Master Plan,
2002 partially encloses the central plaza and FNUniv initiated a process to expand their
houses academic and office spaces. To the facilities and submitted a Notice of Intent
east, academic and housing facilities will to the University of Regina. The desired
be grouped around a smaller courtyard. To expansion program would include new
the south the building will open to a large buildings, exterior spaces, and the exterior
cultural area, which will accommodate up link to the rest of the main campus. FNUniv
to 8,000 people. To the north it opens onto intends to carry out a formal campus
a gathering space for powwows, and to planning process in the near term to support
the west it will open onto the University of their expansion interests.
Regina campus. As a result of the location
near the Trans-Canada Highway, it is a The 2016 Master Plan demonstration does
prominent visual landmark. not indicate any built form changes given
the timing and status of current discussions
The land is currently owned by First Nations around the future development on the
University of Canada and they are seeking FNUniv campus. The only adjustment is a
Reserve status. They have agreed to realignment to the perimeter road so that it
continue to jointly plan and administer better intersects with the east-west street in
the site under a Land Use Agreement that front of Luther and Campion Colleges.
mirrors the principles and guidelines of WCA
and the Campus Plan. The long range vision for FNUniv, illustrated
on Page 93, is unchanged from previous
FNUniv prepared a new strategic plan Master Plans.
in 2013 entitled “Lighting the Path: First

Main Campus: First Nations University of Canada (Mid-Term)

4.11 Innovation Place
Innovation Place is a research park under the Saskatchewan Opportunities Corporation,

a Crown corporation that supports the advancement and success of Saskatchewan’s
technology and key growth sectors through the development and operation of technology
parks at the province’s universities in Saskatoon and Regina and the Forest Centre in Prince
Albert.
The Regina campus opened in 2000. Located next to the University of Regina, Innovation
Place hosts leading edge petroleum, environmental sciences and information technology
organizations. Innovation Place is home to 27 tenants, employing over 1,300 people. The
park includes 6 buildings with 465,000 square feet of space.
Innovation Place is located on land leased from the University and has been developed with
strong physical links to the University. The priority for growth is on further developing the
frontages on Research Drive along the promenade leading from the University Mall to Terrace
Plaza. Future developments will further consolidate the connection with the University
campus. The development along Research Drive will be followed by the infilling of sites
within the perimeter loop road on the secondary street and greenway frontages.
Like the 2011 Plan, the 2016 Plan carries forward approved plans for Innovation Place.
Innovation Place
Research Park:
Atrium at the Terrace

Main Campus: Innovation Place

4.12 East Campus
The East Campus has been part of the Campus Master Plan for several decades. The East
Campus will be essentially a standalone campus that provides the necessary academic,
recreational, residential, and other support functions that a University requires to be a
successful institution. It will develop using the same high standards proposed in the
Strategies in this Plan and will not be considered subordinate or inferior to main campus.
The development of the East Campus will enable the University to approach 25,000 FTE
students, the typical population of a mature university.
Given the long term aspiration for expanding the university beyond the main campus, the
current demonstration plan has not changed for many years. The 2016 Master Plan does not
reconsider the demonstration or proposals from the 2011 Master Plan.
In the Demonstration Plan, the new campus is organized around an Academic Green East at
the head of a generous Central Mall. Corridors at right angles to the Mall link parking, sports
fields and the SaskPoly campus. The corridors, which accommodate cars, bicycles and
pedestrians, link the two campuses to each other and to sports fields and Wascana Lake
beyond. The Academic Green is of the same scale as that in the existing Main Campus. The
new campus is accessed by a main entrance drive from Wascana Parkway.
4.13 Grant Road Site
Located to the southwest of the campus and on the other side of Wascana Parkway along
Grant Road is a 33-acre site owned by the University. In the 2011 Campus Plan, this land
parcel was leased to Innovation Place, and was identified as Phase II of their development
plan. Since that time, Innovation Place has deleted this parcel from the long term
development strategy, and the lease has been revised to remove this area. The current use
for this site is Community Gardens, and this will continue until the University moves forward
with a formal development plan. The University has explored concepts for a future family
residential community. However, the overall development program has not yet identified.
Thus, the 2016 Master Plan does not include changes to the current demonstration plan.
Grant Road Site

East Campus

4.14 College Avenue Campus
Over the past few decades, each Master Plan has considered modest development on the
College Avenue campus. A major revision from the 2011 plan is the University of Regina’s
intent to enhance the bonds between “town and gown” and has launched, as its number one
capital fundraising priority, the College Avenue Campus Renewal Project. The University has
stated its commitment to transforming its historic campus into a vibrant, accessible centre
of learning while ensuring that refurbished heritage spaces are carefully integrated with new
construction. The University commissioned a Heritage Assessment of the campus buildings
and their setting in advance of preparing for more detailed plans.
This major revision to the Master Plan (demonstration) illustrates possible long-term
development in the area of the College Avenue Campus based on the following planning
principles and design guidelines for development:
• The protection, preservation, restoration and re–use of the heritage buildings.
• Improvement in the functionality and use of the heritage buildings to meet new teaching
expectations and modern building codes.
• Compatible new infill development on the College Avenue frontage following the site
planning patterns of the existing buildings.
• Maximum building height of 13.0 metres - the average height of the mature tree canopy.
• The establishment of a central mall or “green’ extending from College Building’s south
façade toward the Lake; intended to bring an additional “lakeside” identity and dimension
to the campus, beyond the College Avenue frontage, and reflects a reinterpretation of the
Mawson Plan for a college precinct.
• Recognition of the view corridors towards the Lake and from the perpendicular city streets
north of College Avenue.
• Development of a well-ordered internal campus street system that provides frontage to

new buildings and is not reliant on Wascana Drive as the principal means of vehicular
access.
• Maintenance of surface parking that is available to people using Wascana Park at off-
peak times.

College Avenue Campus
College Avenue Campus, Darke Hall

4.15 Composite Plan: Mid-Range - 25 Years
The following illustrations combine the preceding component plans, to provide an overall
composite picture of the potential organization of the campus in the future, when the
campus has developed to support expected growth.
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
OF REGINA
OF REGINA
/ CAMPUS
/ CAMPUS
MASTER
MASTER
PLAN PLAN
/ 2016//2016 / PAGE/ PAGE
DRAFT_01 90 90
4.16 Composite Plan: Full Build Out
Once full build-out has occurred, any further growth requirements may either be
accommodated through open land and/or by siting some of the supplementary functions
of the University in Wascana East.
(Dashed outlines indicate potential future development sites beyond the mid-range)
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
OF REGINA
OF REGINA
/ CAMPUS
/ CAMPUS
MASTER
MASTER
PLAN PLAN
/ 2016//2016 / PAGE/ PAGE
DRAFT_01 92 92
5.0 Campus Planning History
The development of the campus was guided by a series of

plans that were reviewed on a regular basis. Each plan was
built on the former, but introduced changes driven by new
physical, programming and economic requirements.

1962 – Yamasaki/Church Plan An area for research was allocated on the
eastern outskirts of the academic core next
Minoru Yamasaki, architect planner, and to the lake, now the site of the First Nations
Thomas D. Church, landscape advisor, University of Canada. Student dormitories
prepared the first Master Plan for what were clustered towards the geograph
was then the University of Saskatchewan, ic centre of the campus and were to be
Regina Campus. linear buildings arranged around free-form
courtyards.
The new University campus plan included
five major zones — an academic core, South of Wascana Parkway the land was
undergraduate student housing, married to be occupied by five quadrangles of
student housing, sports fields, and a residences for married students. Sports
research area. The academic core was fields were located adjacent to the “Bypass
shown as a compact series of buildings Expressway” (now the Trans Canada High
placed on one-storey podia and connect way Bypass). The access road system
ed by walkways; forming a series of courts featured a perimeter drive around the site
focused on an impressive library which and a cross drive curling south.
faced north to a large formal entry drive and
south to a landscaped “mall”.

1967 Yamasaki/Church Master Plan Review

1967 – Yamasaki/Church Review The sports fields are shown relocated
to the south. The north-east research
By 1967, the first of the regular five year buildings and the proposed married student
plan reviews, the classroom building, quadrangles south of Wascana Parkway
laboratory building, central heating plant, have not changed.
physical education centre, and Campion
College had been built. The library and The extensive surface parking lots
education building were either under interspersed between buildings shown in
construction or at the advanced design the 1962 plan are replaced by two huge
stage. These can be seen on the plan in parking structures and four smaller surface
their present locations and with somewhat lots, north, south, east and west of the
more definite form than the future buildings. campus buildings.
The plan retains the idea of quadrangles The road system was modified a little.
surrounding a landscaped mall to the south The perimeter driveway remained, but the
and an entrance court to the north of the “Central Avenue” was straightened and an
library (now much smaller). The proposed intermediate road, now University Drive East
student dormitories have been brought was introduced; both to provide access to
into a much closer relationship with the the large parking structures.
academic buildings.

1967 Yamasaki/Church Master Plan Review

1972 – Long Plan remained approximately the same place and
extent, while the playing fields were strung
The 1972 Plan for the campus was out as a buffer strip between the buildings
produced by Jack Long of Calgary. By and the highway. Much of the remaining
this time, the University had begun hiring land was taken up by a proposed golf
Saskatchewan architects for the buildings course.
and the adherence to the concepts of a
series of small courtyards and a “podium The road system began to take on its
and upper building” organization began current layout as a ring road around the
to be abandoned. Luther College, the central academic buildings, with some
Education and Maintenance buildings had meandering to make it more like a scenic
been built, and College West as well as the drive. Parking was still, with a few
“AdHum” building were under construction. exceptions, expected to be housed in multi-
level structures, particularly two on either
The idea of linked buildings persisted in side of the Maintenance building.
a somewhat modified form. The focus of
the outdoor space now became a large The land south of the parkway lost its status
quadrangle, featuring a circular ornamental as a married student housing district, and
pond, rather than a composition of smaller was shown as a research park.
courts. In general, the “build out” territory

1972 Long Master Plan

1977 – Long Review system expressed as a series of dots. The
future building forms are vague; but they
By 1977 the building boom had ended. follow the same basic arrangement as in
Except for the College West/Laboratory 1972. Housing was now dropped as a
Building link built around 1976, a seventeen firm feature of the plan, its place south
year hiatus on building construction on the of University Drive South given either to
campus was underway, only to end in 1991. research or residences.
The 1977 Plan was much more tenta The urge to fill out the site area with future
tive than its predecessors, attempting buildings was no longer strong. The Plan
to express principles without too closely was content to leave significant portions of
defining building form. The road system the campus designated as a land reserve
is simplified, and the internal pedestrian with unspecified use.

1977 Long Master Plan Review

1982 – du Toit Plan
The 1982 Plan included, for the first time,

a written report which identified planning
principles (see diagrams, left) as the major
component of the plan, with the drawing
providing a “demonstration” of the kind of
built form that might result if the principles
First Priority: Two Linking Buildings
were followed.
Further student housing, as a major land

use, was deleted from the plan. The primary
organizing features of the campus were
seen as the interior pedestrian circulation
system (which necessitated linked build
ings) and a landscape structure (which
established a “head” and “tail” of Academic
Green and University Mall). The Green Later growth extends from Primary
provided focus to the academic buildings Circuit
while the Mall provided the organizing
structure for future growth to the south,
identified as research facilities. Buildings
not in the primary pedestrian loop around
the Academic Green were connected as
arms from it.
A new road parallel to the University Mall

was proposed, later to be named “Research
Drive”, and the beginnings of a network of
streets and blocks shown in the research
area.
Parking was to be accommodated in a Research extends down University Mall

mixture of surface lots and two parkades,
one to the south-west, the other to the
north-east. The fields remained as originally
proposed in 1972. Once again, no attempt
was made to show built form in areas of the
campus where growth was not foreseen for
many years.
Open Space Structure

1982 du Toit Master Plan

1987 – du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan for new and existing buildings east of the
Academic Green would be provided by the
In 1987, the Academic Green became development of the cross campus street
more informal, and the campus south of connection.
University Drive South was more clearly
articulated as a research area with its own 3. Create a strong physical and
focal landscape, the “South Green”. A new symbolic focus to the academic core
north/south road was proposed through through the landscaping of the Academic
the academic core and extending south Green, linked through generous open space
around the research uses. Significant areas connections to the rest of the campus and
were designated as land reserve. The land lakefront.
reserve south of Wascana Parkway was
proposed to be developed as a community 4. Establish an appropriate
garden on an interim basis. relationship between new buildings and
parking lots through a parkade in the
Six major planning objectives were stated: north-east where space is limited and
extending surface lots in the south-west.
1. Complete the interior pedestrian The Plan foresaw that the amount of new
circuit and its extensions to allow the development in the academic core would
academic core of the campus to operate as ultimately be limited by the ability to provide
intended with interior connections between adequate and a conveniently located
as many buildings as possible. surface or structured parking to serve the
buildings.
2. Ensure that each building has a
public address, which gives it a public 5. Relieve traffic congestion,
presence, facilitates formal arrival at the particularly at the existing entrances,
main entrance, and assists in wayfinding partly through the establishment of a new
particularly for visitors but also for regular entrance to the campus at Grant Road (now
users of the campus. Public addresses called Research Drive).
6. Expand associated but non-

academic uses to the south, including
research facilities and surface parking.
Interior Circulation
A Focal Space Expansion to the South

1987 du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan

1992 – du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan The Old Fire hall on Grant Road had been
turned over to the University and used as a
The 1992 Plan was actually completed in Technology Development Centre.
1995 as the roles of the WCA were modified
to require Master Plan updates only every For the first time since 1972, the idea of
seven years versus five. The Language construction east of University Drive East
Institute, which brought an end to the long was considered, paving the way for an
dearth of construction, had been construct institution which “warranted an association
ed in 1991, Luther College expanded in with the University, but was not dependent
1991, the Daycare was built in 1993, and on the frequent movement of students, staff
the University Centre architectural drawings or faculty between it and other facilit ies
were complete. within the academic core”.
Two research buildings had also been In other respects, the Plan remained
constructed: the ISM Building in 1990 and unchanged from 1987.
The Software Technology Centre in 1994.
Landscape Structure

1992 du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan

1998 – du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan Library addition was illustrated narrowed to
preserve the existing trees.
By the 1998 Plan, the University Centre
(since named the Dr. William Riddell The area south of University Drive was
Centre) was complete and the proposed planned as a formalized Research Park to
First Nations University of Canada was be an entity associated with, but separate
shown east of University Drive East. A from, the University. A focal square was
proposed Winter Sports Complex was situated at the terminus of north-south
located between Physical Education and pedestrian arm for new buildings to frame
the Education Building, a parking structure and expand outward from.
was recommended south of the Colleges,
and Luther College was shown expanding For the first time since 1982, the concept of
eastwards. Courtyard buildings with a north-south through-road west of Physical
primary facades towards the Lake were Education, connecting to the Research
recommended north of the Colleges. Park, was abandoned in order to maintain a
completely pedestrian academic precinct.
The Academic Green was reduced in University Drive West and its corresponding
size and framed by two symmetrical infill Research Park road was shown shifted east
buildings that acted as a gateway to an to improve safety at the Wascana Parkway
eastern pedestrian arm, connecting to the intersections.
First Nations University of Canada. The two
buildings were to be linked below-grade Potential locations for routes under the
to provide access to service/emergency Trans Canada Highway were also proposed
vehicles and to maintain uninterrupted in case of the need to site a future campus
east-west landscape corridors. The in Wascana East.
Proposed Interior Concourse Structure

1998 du Toit Allsopp Hiller Plan

1999 - du Toit Allsopp Hillier 1. Building envelopes are typically 37
Research Park Plan metres wide and conform to a 9 metre
planning grid.
In 1999, the Regina Research Park Plan was
developed in greater detail into a Master 2. A landscape/pedestrian/building
Site Plan, the plan currently in use. The articulation zone of 8 metres is provided
Loop Road is reconfigured to better respond between i) building envelope face, and ii)
to the Highway and the Wascana Parkway, curb to street, driveway, or parking bay.
by attempting to parallel them, where
possible. The Research Quad reflects this 3. Continuous driveways 7 metres
change and transforms from a rectangular wide flank the rear of the buildings and
shape into an octagonal arrangement, with connected parking bays. Loading and fire
a turning circle at its centre. The circle access is provided from these driveways.
creates a central node that accommodates
visitor parking and provides a terminus 4. Double-loaded parking bays are 18
to the north-south axis leading to the metres wide. They are interspersed with
Academic Green. It and the key “image- tree planting strips 3 metres wide.
creating” building are aligned with the entry
road so that it they are in the direct line of 5. Landscaped walkway bands are 8
sight for drivers arriving to the Park. metres wide to permit 2.5 metre sidewalks
flank by 2.75 metre planting strips.
Longer term expansion is shown lining
the Loop Road and Research Drive, with 6. 2.5 metre sidewalks are set back 3
parking behind. Greater emphasis is put on metres from roadway curbs to permit a tree
Research Drive by showing strong building planting and snow-clearing zone.
frontages, without parking along its length.
7. Gross floor area is counted as 90% of
Three parking structures are shown, one of the illustrated building envelope footprint.
which will replace stalls lost to development
of the University surface parking Lot 15, on 8. Parking decks are assumed to have 3.5
University Drive South. floors at 350 sq. ft. per stall.
The Plan uses eight Site Plan Design

Criteria:

1999 Research Park Plan

2004 - du Toit Allsopp Hillier Plan Principles cover all aspects of the physical
development of the campus, including open
The 2004 Campus Plan positions itself space structure, architectural character,
as the physical component of a three- interior and exterior pedestrian circulation,
part institutional plan, which includes an accessibility, roads and parking, public
Academic Plan and a Financial Plan. transit, and the provision of academic,
residential, recreation and community
The Plan advocates for the completion of facilities.
the interior pedestrian concourse, a focal
Academic Green and other related open The 2004 Plan promoted a level of
spaces, all while achieving other institutional development that was reduced from that
goals such as the development of parking, shown in the 1999 Plan. The 2004 Plan
community and academic facilities. recognized that surface parking was
an essential requirement of the Regina
Principle-based rather than prescriptive, the campus, and sought to balance projected
2004 Plan includes 27 strategies supported development with the ability to maintain
by demonstration plans that illustrate adequate parking.
one way the objectives could be realized.
2004 Plan: Spatial Structure

2004 Demonstration Plan

2011 - Dialog Plan population sufficient to support a full range
of services and social opportunities. The
As the campus matures, the differences 2011 Plan identifies the University as a
between successive Master Plans have Campus in the Park with a well-developed,
become less pronounced. The 2016 Master four-season open space framework that
Plan continues the tradition by confirming facilitates academic and social interaction,
or refining the directives of previous plans and provides high connectivity between
and, in particular, the 2011 Master Plan. buildings and between the campus and
While the style and format is different, the adjacent uses. The Plan suggests that the
2011 Master Plan sets out a vision for the campus could be more welcoming and
campus that is itself a direct extension of have stronger ties to its context through
that contained within the 2003 Master Plan. improvements to the Wascana Parkway and
Wascana Lake frontages. In the 2011 Plan,
The 2011 Plan promotes a campus that campus streets are upgraded, more parking
is “welcoming, sustainable, diverse and is accommodated in structures, public
connected”. The built form of the campus transit is improved, and bicycle facilities are
will be compact and interconnected, and upgraded.
will accommodate a student/faculty/staff
2011 Plan: Main Campus

2011 Plan: Open Space Framework

Part of a Larger Development normal landscape evolution. Currently under
Pattern cultivation, large parts of the south and east
quadrants of Wascana Centre are identified
The University is both an independent entity for future, as yet undefined, institutional and
and a vital component of Wascana Centre. parkland development.
The various facilities and landscapes of The mature landscapes of Wascana Centre
Wascana Centre have developed in a are rooted in romantic landscape motifs
pattern that reflects both the strong fluid imported from Europe at the beginning of
geometries of the lake and the equally the 20th Century. These landscapes are
strong but regular geometries of the cherished and should be maintained. Going
surrounding city. forward, however, the natural and cultural
prairie setting should be adopted as a
Almost all buildings, whether single or basis for future landscape development.
in groups, are oriented according to the These landscapes will be more sustainable,
orthogonal grid of the original land survey and will reflect a contemporary, localized
and the city’s street pattern. Roads, walk aesthetic.
ways and landscapes directly associated
with buildings or building groups generally Management strategies should be
support this geometry as well, reinforcing developed that will promote sustainability
the sense of order and connectedness that in the face of increasing diminished water
firmly ties the Centre’s institutions with the resources. A first strategy will be to prioritize
city. levels of maintenance throughout the
established landscapes. A second strategy
In contrast, the larger landscapes of will be to adopt sustainable, prairie-
the Centre have evolved according to based approaches to the design of new
the informal geometries of the lake and landscapes.
terrain, contrasting with and balancing the
discipline of the building groupings. These The 2016 Plan identifies limited areas that
landscapes, which comprise the greater should receive high maintenance and
portion of the Centre, have now a strong expands the extent of low maintenance
sense of presence that ties together the landscape.
disparate land masses and institutions,
creating the coherent and memorable image In the 2016 Plan, Wascana Centre as a
for which the Centre is known. whole is considered as a Cultural Heritage
Landscape based on its longevity, historical
The 2016 Plan confirms the shift in associations and the prominence of past
emphasis from development to stewardship. designers. The Legislative Building and
Much of Wascana Centre is mature in the Grounds currently enjoy federal heritage
sense that development in those areas is designation. The 2016 Plan identifies other
nearing completion and landscapes are buildings and landscapes that should be
well-established. Changes in these areas identified for further heritage assessment
will largely be limited to modest building and possible designation in the near future.
renovations and replacements, and to

2016 Wascana Centre Master Plan


Ur CMP 2016 Final Screen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ur CMP 2016 Final Screen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ur CMP 2016 Final Screen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U N I V E R S I T Y O F R E G I N A

Main switchboard: 306-585-4111

Planning, Design & Construction

Robert Allsopp, Roger du Toit

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE ii

Roger du Toit / 1939 - 2015

Roger was Architect Planner and Chair of Wascana Centre

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE iii

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE iv

Dr. Vianne Timmons

President and Vice-Chancellor

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE v

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE vi

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE vii

1.0 Introduction and Summary 1

2.0 The Campus Today 9

3.0 Planning Strategies 25

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE viii

4.0 Demonstration Plan 71

5.0 Campus Planning History 95

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE ix

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 2

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 3

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 4

• The Outer Campus. Strategies for • The Southeast Mixed-use Quadrant.

• The Maturing Campus. The 2016 • College Avenue Campus. Future

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 5

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 6

General Land Ownership

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 7

This section describes the main features of the existing

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 9

University campuses in Regina

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 10

• Gallery Building (1953 and 1957; 20,500

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 11

The Main Campus lands north and east

The buildings within the University Drive

• Kisik Towers (Completed 2015; 319,500

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 12

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 13

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 14

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 15

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 16

Aerial photo of Main Campus and

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 17

Existing Campus Roads

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 18

Existing Campus Utilities

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 19

The Maturing Campus

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 20

Existing Main Campus: Valued Landscapes

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 21

The drawings above and on the next

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 22

Cypress Hills Inter-

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA / CAMPUS MASTER PLAN / 2016 / PAGE 23

This section provides the plan­ning strategies which are the

This section provides the planning strategies which are the

A Consolidated Main Campus

Buildings should be organized on Existing high quality open spaces should