CurtinUniversity_Report_v7c [email]

August 2015
CURTIN UNIVERSITY
GREATER CURTIN
MASTER PLAN

1. Introduction, brief and methodology
2. Global university trends
3. Education and economic activity
4. The competitive environment – university
competition
5. How does Curtin compare?
6. Western Australia – the local environment
7. The Greater Curtin Master Plan – a paradigm shift
8. Concept to completion – the challenge
9. Summary and conclusions
CONTENTS

In March 2015, Turnberry Consulting was appointed by Curtin
University to undertake a study to evaluate the ambition and
scope of the Greater Curtin Master Plan, a suite of documents
designed to direct future growth and development at
the university’s Bentley campus in Perth until 2031 and
beyond. Specifically, Turnberry was appointed to scrutinise
the Greater Curtin Master Plan against the current and
future trends likely to emerge within the university sector,
to determine the potential impact of the strategy upon
the long-term future of the University. Understanding the
competitiveness of the Greater Curtin Master Plan has been
central to Turnberry’s work, including a consideration of its
relative merits and areas for improvement. This appraisal
was informed by site visits, which enabled a thorough
evaluation of Curtin and its local competitors based upon an
analysis of both physical and programmatic offers, as well
as a wider review of regional, national and global campus
development trends. This report makes an economic case
for the creation of Greater Curtin and for the expansion of
Curtin University at the core of this scheme, and have also
considered the consequences of inaction should the master
plan be abandoned or reduced in ambition.
1. INTRODUCTION, BRIEF AND
METHODOLOGY

The Greater Curtin Master Plan
Curtin University recognises that it must continually
strive to be at the cutting edge of university practice
in order to realise its key strategic aim: to become
a recognised international leader in research and
education by 2030. Today, Curtin has already
established a reputation as a university that is bold,
future-focused and innovative, having pioneered
international education in its region and taken a
leading role in advancing indigenous education. The
University is also taking the leading role in a growing
number of pioneering research projects, such as the
international Square Kilometre Array radio telescope
initiative. The Greater Curtin Master Plan is a natural
extension of these achievements, and concurrently
it represents a major step change in institutional
ambition. If successful, as Turnberry strongly believe
it can be, Greater Curtin will be an exemplar project
for the rationalisation and re-definition of the
suburban university type, with profound and lasting
implications around the world.
The Greater Curtin Master Plan is amongst the most
ambitious, bold and dynamic master plans for a
university campus anywhere in the world today. Since
its foundation in 1966 as the Western Australian
Institute of Technology, Curtin has grown to become
the largest university in Western Australia, with
more than 61,000 students enrolled across its eight
campuses. This growth has been driven by innovation
and commitment to engage with the ever-changing
university climate. As a result, Curtin has become one
of the most actively international higher education
institutions in Australia, with the third largest
international student population in the country.
Against this global outlook, Curtin University is
seeking to reimagine its main campus, a 114-hectare
site in Bentley, a suburb six kilometres to the south of
Perth’s Central Business District.
The Greater Curtin Master Plan is the latest strategic
review in a series of institutional assessments dating
back over 20 years. The 1990s saw great change for
Curtin. It was during this decade that the University
moved from being a predominantly undergraduate
institution to a place capable of conducting leading
research and supporting a range of doctoral
programmes. At the same time, Curtin also developed
funding relationships with external partners,
receiving 35 per cent of its research funding from
non-federal sources. Growth in international student
numbers supported on-going campus development.
In 1996, Curtin undertook a comprehensive review,
which resulted in a strategic plan to establish itself
as a world-class university of technology. In 2000,
Curtin embarked on a major scheme of construction,
refurbishment and conversion across its Bentley
campus. A principal component of this programme
was the creation of the University’s A$116 million
Resources Chemistry Precinct, built between
2006 and 2009. Offering contemporary laboratory
facilities across approximately 15,500 square
metres of floor space, the new building transformed
Curtin’s scientific research capabilities in a drive
to attract world-class researchers and students to
Curtin University Greater Curtin Master Plan. August 2015 5

create ‘the largest group of resources, minerals
and chemistry researchers in the southern
hemisphere’.
Prior to the publication of the Greater Curtin
Master Plan, Curtin University spent significant
time and effort coming to understand the
potential of the Bentley campus site for future
development. Numerous reports, such as the
2012 Curtin Place Activation Plan, provided
recommendations for smaller aspects of
Curtin’s campus environment, but only with the
publication of the Greater Curtin Master Plan
in 2014 was a vision set out to transform the
Bentley campus – currently a suburban campus
consisting of an almost-exclusively academic
environment – into a dynamic, mixed-use urban
centre better suited to face an increasingly
competitive globalised university sector.
It is a bold and ambitious scheme, intended
to not only instigate a step change in the way
Curtin operates, but also to radically transform
the higher education environment in Western
Australia. Without this ambitious approach it is
unlikely that Curtin will achieve the step change it
has set itself for 2030.
Opposite left (top to bottom): Alcoa Court; Temporary
Classrooms; Stadium (all Curtin)
Opposite right (top to bottom): Chemistry Precinct;
Courtyard; Engineering Pavilion (all Curtin)
6 Curtin University Greater Curtin Master Plan. August 2015

METHODOLOGY
Turnberry is a development strategy
consultancy specialising in delivering
strategic development advice to a range
of sectors, including universities.
The practice has a long-standing tradition of being
delivery-focused with almost all of its projects evolving
from practical need, where competitiveness, quality
and functionality are the prime driving forces. Turnberry
has a history of undertaking objective assessments of
world-class enterprises, with a portfolio of prestigious
university clients in this field, and is regularly
commissioned to ensure that the physical development
of an asset is competitive. Turnberry has extensive
experience in the field of higher education, having
advised numerous institutions on a diverse range
of projects. These include the University of Oxford,
University of Hertfordshire, Coventry University, Cranfield
University, Cambridge Theological Federation, University
of Edinburgh, University of London, the National Film and
Television School, and University of Sheffield.
Much of Turnberry’s research into the higher education
sector has originated from work undertaken during the
process of creating and implementing a development
strategy for the University of Oxford’s estate, between
1997 and 2012. This entailed much competitive analysis
over 15 years to ensure the University remained
amongst the premiere universities in the world. The core
of this research has informed two books: University
Planning and Architecture (2nd edition, Routledge,
2015), and University Trends (Routledge, 2014), written by
Paul Roberts, Jonathan Coulson and Isabelle Taylor. Paul
Roberts frequently delivers lectures around the world to
discuss Turnberry’s theory for the future of the university
campus.
Turnberry is highly attuned to the process of placemaking
and physical branding, and has applied this methodology
to university estates, stadia, and settlement planning. The
practice is well experienced in planning interventions that
are focussed, embedded and deliverable, and following
through such proposals to their successful completion.
For the University of Oxford it not only developed a
strategy but followed it through for 15 years. Turnberry
also has long-running relationships with Cranfield
University (since 1998) and Coventry University (since
2007).
Turnberry has applied its academically rigorous
methodology to the Greater Curtin Master Plan in order to
evaluate how Curtin’s vision for the Bentley Campus and its
surrounding area can be realised to a world-class standard.
The first section of the report sets the scene, providing
an evidence-based background against which Curtin’s
plans for development can be set. This section is split into
three parts. The first explores key global university trends,
highlighting the various factors and fundamentals that
Curtin will need to have considered when planning for the
future. The second highlights how investment in higher
education can lead to economic returns for universities,
local communities and local and national government.
The third lays out the global competitive environment faced
by Curtin, providing a benchmark against which the Greater
Curtin Master Plan should be measured.
The second section of this document focuses on Curtin
University more specifically, against competitive
environments it operates in. This begins with a national
assessment, comparing the Greater Curtin Master Plan to
similar initiatives undertaken at Australian universities
across the country. Lessons should be learned from
these projects and applied to Curtin’s plans. A regional
assessment follows. In April 2015, Turnberry conducted
a thorough site assessment of Curtin’s Bentley Campus,
alongside site visits to Curtin’s competitors in Western
Australia: the University of Western Australia, Murdoch
University, Edith Cowan University, and The University of
Notre Dame Australia. These site visits, combined with
research into the programmatic offerings at each university,
have informed an evaluation of the competitiveness of
Curtin against local and regional institutions.
The third section of the report positions the Greater Curtin
Master Plan against the global, regional and local university
trends, drawing attention to its merits and offering
recommendations for improvement. Turnberry believe
that the master plan represents a paradigm shift for Curtin
University, a bold and ambitious proposal that will transform
the University into a vital, productive and future-proof
university for the twenty-first century. The consequences of
inaction should the master plan be ignored are also laid out
along with the challenges of implementation, as a caution
against project creep or lost momentum.

THE CAMPUS IN THE 21ST
CENTURY
The challenges faced by universities in
the twenty-first century are continually
evolving, and the physical environment
of the campus is adapting in turn.
The twenty-first-century campus is an
enormously challenging landscape to
design and manage successfully. As
Le Corbusier observed, ‘the university
is a world in itself’. The campus
must constantly respond to external
political and fiscal pressures, whilst
simultaneously adapting to changing
pedagogies and new technologies.
Smaller endowments and falling state
funding must be managed in tandem
with growing student numbers and
their ever-rising expectations. The
field of institutional master planning is
also having to evolve to answer to the
ever-changing financial, pedagogic,
strategic and technological climate of
university life.
2. GLOBAL UNIVERSITY TRENDS:
PRESENT AND FUTURE
The historical development of campuses is significant
to the challenges faced by Curtin today. The evolution
of campus design can essentially be condensed into a
series of key epidsodes. The oldest universities founded
in the Middle Ages, such as Oxford and Cambridge
in the UK, were founded as urban institutions whose
estates have subsequently developed organically over
the centuries. The nineteenth century saw the second
juncture, when the growth of higher education, most
notably in the US, changed the nature of campus design
through the introduction of three major themes:
1. The ‘academical village’, developed at the
University of Virginia;
2. The Beaux-Arts model of the City Beautiful, which
determined schemes at Chicago, Columbia,
Stanford and Maryland; and
3. The land grant university, such as the University of
Massachusetts Amherst, rural and picturesque in
design.
The third juncture came in the wake of the Second
World War, and was again pioneered in the US. The
Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, or G.I. Bill (1944),
spurred a dramatic surge in the American higher
education sector – 2.2 million additional students –
which necessitated a new campus-building programme
on an unprecedented scale. The size and speed at which
these new universities were required necessitated the
development of a new model of campus building – the
whole-cloth campus.
The University of California exemplified this trend.
Although the institution has been founded in 1869,
the enormous rise in demand for higher education
saw it construct three entirely new campuses at
Santa Cruz, San Diego and Irvine, founded between
1960 and 1965.
The growth of higher education was not limited to
the US, and the whole-cloth model spread across the
world. In Britain, the number of universities doubled
during the 1960s from 22 to 46, as a new generation
of institutions including Sussex (1961), York (1963)
and East Anglia (1963) were founded to accommodate
rocketing student numbers. In post-war Australia, a
raft of new universities were inaugurated, including
the Australian National University (1946), University
of New South Wales (1949) and University of New
England (1954). The Western Australian Institute of
Technology – the precursor to Curtin University – was
also founded as part of this movement in 1966.
The post-war generation of whole-cloth campuses
to which Curtin belongs differ fundamentally
from its predecessors. Firstly, because they were
conceived following the advent of the car when
suburbanisation was gathering pace, unlike the
dense, urban campuses of Oxford or Columbia,
these new foundations were often constructed at a
distance from city centres. Moreover, the large-scale
and immediacy at which these campuses were born
resulted in defined, rigid schemes very distinct

from the universities of previous centuries which
had grown gradually and organically over time.
Today, the differences embodied in the suburban
post-war campus result in several disadvantages
as institutions work to ensure their estates are
functional, efficient and up-to-date.
The challenge of creating and maintaining the
physical environment of a university is arguably
more complex and more important than ever before.
Demand for tertiary education is soaring at the same
time as it is becoming more expensive to attain one.
Rapid globalisation has led to increased competition
between universities, hand in hand with new
opportunities for those who provide the best facilities
first.
In this increasingly competitive and international
context, the campus becomes the most valuable
asset an institution will ever boast. Sophisticated
architecture and coherent planning make for
compelling statements of institutional identity.
They not only reinforce academic ideologies and
values, but the appearance of a campus and the
facilities it possesses can also play a decisive role in
attracting the best students. Against this backdrop,
universities today must leverage the strategic value
of their campus to a greater extent than ever before.
It is essential that institutions use their physical
environments effectively to create destinations that
enhance the educational experience for the student.
There is no single template for the ideal twenty-
first-century campus, but the need for change at
many institutions is clear. The technology and
infrastructure of nineteenth- and twentieth-century
campuses often struggle to keep step with the
modern learning climate and the changes in funding
structure within which universities operate.
Around the world, universities are recognising this
shifting context and, with this goal in mind, are
innovating new approaches to architecture and
planning. To be successful though, the overarching
concern must be to ensure efficiency. This is the only
means by which the challenge of mounting global
competition and the need for capital to produce the
best facilities may be managed.
The following chapter takes stock of the current
climate within campus design, and identifies seven
key trends that have been adopted around the world
in education and research. These trends should form
the basis of any master planning process for the
creation of a twenty-first-century university campus,
and are illuminating when considered alongside the
Greater Curtin Master Plan.

Joint-venture buildings
With the spectre of state budget cuts, rising utility
costs and growing enrolment looming over higher
education, universities are adopting more radical
strategies when it comes to investing in their
facilities. One such strategy is the joint-venture
building. Essentially, a joint-venture building project
encompasses some form of shared ownership,
tenancy or management of a physical space between
a university and one or more partners; a pooling of
resources to increase efficiency and encourage cross-
cultural practice. This is in essence the sharing of
capital between institutions.
The concept is wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary, and
is born of a variety of motivations. Joint-venture
schemes can arise from the collaboration of two
or more higher education institutions, such as at
University Square (2013) in London, a hub initiative
for Birkbeck University and the University of East
London; or they may be a partnership between
a university and a local community body or local
government; or they may be a product of universities
partnering with commercial industry or research
institutes, particularly in terms of science or
innovation buildings, such as the research complex
jointly developed by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and
MIT in 2013 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Within this
spectrum, there are various levels of partnership,
from simply sharing the same roof to full institutional
Opposite: New Horizons
Research Hub, Monash
University (2013)
Below Left: Amsterdam
University College, University
of Amsterdam (2012)
Below Right: University Square,
London (2008-2013)
integration between the participating entities.
Joint-venture projects have been cultivated at
universities from the 1950s onwards, at the German
National Library of Science and Technology at
Leibniz Universität Hannover (established 1959)
or MIT’s Tech Square (established 1961). However,
the practice has become more strategic and more
frequent in response to the changing operating
conditions and ambitions of higher education
institutions. A number of typologies are emerging:
science centres, libraries, and industry collaborations;
alongside key motivating factors that drive the
projects: community cohesion, financial management,
and interdisciplinary interaction. Curtin’s Bentley
Campus is host to several joint-venture buildings,
including the Resources and Chemistry Precinct, a
collaborative venture between Curtin University and
Chemistry Centre WA, the analytical laboratories of the
Department of Industry and Resources.

Adaptive re-use
Universities have a long track record of re-using
buildings originally designed for different functions,
but in this straightened economic and environmental
climate the approach is proving increasingly
attractive. The repurposing of a building for an
activity other than its original function is known as
adaptive re-use, a process often used to protect
historically or architecturally significant structures
from abandonment, deterioration, and demolition.
Adaptive re-use tends to be both environmentally
responsible and cost-effective. It also has the benefit
of repurposing pre-developed land, thus preserving
precious open space.
Universities the world over have applied this practice to
their campus development, with rewarding results. In
an era of identikit laboratory buildings and lacklustre
student accommodation, preserving and updating older
buildings can retain historic flavour and vernacular
charm, both essential in establishing a sense of place
and a point of difference. There is no shortage of recent
examples. In 2008, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in
Belgium repurposed a car park as offices, classrooms,
meeting rooms and a library, and in 2012, the Eindhoven
University of Technology in the Netherlands converted
an old boiler house into laboratory and office facilities.
In Australia, the Sydney College of the Arts is housed in
a group of buildings that used to be part of the Callan
Park Hospital for the Insane, which opened in 1884.
Right: Central Saint Martins, London (2011)

At Curtin University, the practice of renovating and
repurposing existing structures is well established. In
2014 the university invested A$20 million to refurbish
Building 501, a large concrete building towards the south
of the campus. To quote the university’s Properties,
Facilities and Development Department, ‘Building 501
strengthens Curtin’s teaching and learning capacity while
recognising the Humanities role as the centre of cultural
activity on campus. It is a perfect example of what can
be achieved when the existing built environment of the
campus is rethought and reimagined for a new era of
teaching, learning and research’. Adaptive re-use is a
reliable strategy for the preservation of institutional
identity against the necessity of upgrading a campus.
Hubs
Preferred methods of learning and knowledge
dissemination are changing and this has had direct impact
on the type of spaces being built. Emphasis is now on
spaces that are adaptable to future technologies and new
ways of learning, and which create a coherent experience
for students. The ‘hub’ building type exemplifies the
increasingly cross-cultural nature of university life; a
single, mixed-use structure designed to be the centre of
student activity, both social and academic.
Whilst the specifics vary from example to example,
this typology can broadly be described as a twenty-
first-century fusion of the library and student union,
Top: Poetter Hall, Savannah
College of Art and Design (1978)
Bottom: The Boilerhouse,
University of Western Sydney
(2011)

combining provision for recreation and study under
one roof, often joined by other student services.
By consolidating the core principles of the student
experience – teaching, learning, social, support –
hubs are a key means of answering market demands.
The Hub (2011) at Coventry University in the UK – which
combines dining options, a bar, convenience store,
medical centre, careers centre and 2,800 square metres
of informal study zones – has been described by its
architect as a ‘living room for the whole university’.
For Coventry – a disparate urban campus with a high
percentage of commuter students – the opening of the
building has been transformative. As well as promoting
new dynamics of learning through wireless connectivity,
it has invested the institution with a geographical and
psychological focus for its community.
Also in 2011, the University of Adelaide completed Hub
Central, a A$42-million flexible student realm, with
library facilities, formal and informal study spaces,
student services and retail. The development process
for this project exhibited careful attention to detail and
a student-focused attitude. Over 9,000 hours of student
involvement went into the building’s planning, resulting
in bespoke features like digital signage designed
to display community information and workstation
availability. A key part of Hub Central’s character is
its flexibility to respond to the parameters of student
expectations as they evolve. Its floor plan is adaptble
while many interior fittings – sofas, desks, computers –
are lightweight or on wheels to permit easy movement.
Top left top centre: Hub Central, University of
Adelaide (2011)
Bottom left: The Hub, Coventry University (2009)
Right: The Forum, University of Exeter (2012)

The hub concept is likely to develop, taking on more
functions as the realm of the ‘third place’ becomes
more important to campus life alongside the growth
of virtual learning.
Interdisciplinary research buildings
The concept of collaboration across disparate
disciplines is becoming ever more prevalent within
academia. Interdisciplinary practices are opening doors
to new areas of teaching and research, leading to the
construction of dedicated interdisciplinary science
buildings, such as The Francis Crick Institute in London
and the Freidenrich Centre at Stanford University. The
phenomenon is having a tangible impact upon the
physical environments of campuses across the globe.
Recent years have seen a new urgency in the
implementation of interdisciplinary research
buildings. Institutional strategic plans speak time
and again of the need ‘to stimulate collaboration
across subject and faculty borders’ (Uppsala
University 2008), ‘to develop mechanisms to
facilitate cross-disciplinary approaches to research’
(La Trobe University 2008), of ‘interdisciplinarity as a
catalyst for innovation’ (University of Ottawa 2010).
Cross-faculty collaboration is firmly established as a
fundamental aspect of achieving world-class status
and attracting the best scholars, encouraged in no
mean way by governmental financial incentives.
Top: The James H Clark Centre,
Stanford University (2003)
Bottom: Francis Crick Institute,
London (2015)
New buildings are being erected the world over
to facilitate this new concern. The Clark Centre
(2003) at Stanford University was at the forefront of
interdisciplinary science architecture, sporting glazed
walls and a flexible interior. Its model has been followed
elsewhere, at the Collaborative Research Centre (2010)
at Rockefeller University, New York, at The Francis Crick
Institute (2015) and at the Koch Institute (2011) at MIT.
High-profile campus expansion
Many universities are undertaking large–scale
campus expansion projects at the headquarter
campuses. The purpose: to keep abreast of rising
enrolments and changes in knowledge dissemination
and research, as well as to entice students within an
intensely competitive field. This is despite the oft-
repeated references to tightened budgets, shrinking
government funding, and reduced endowments so
common in recent years.
The pattern of large-scale university expansion is a
symptom of the factors shaping the industry. At the
simplest level, enrolments are growing, and more
students require a bigger campus footprint. At a
strategic level, institutions are sustaining greater
participation within STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics) research and
commercial innovation, resulting in a swath of
development devoted to these disciplines.

Aside from statistical and strategic changes, the trend
for large-scale expansion also illustrates something
very interesting about how the university perceives
itself and its mission, specifically in terms of the
world beyond the academic bubble: universities
are deliberately seeking closer integration with
and approximation to urban life. The large-scale
expansions that they are undertaking frequently
transcend the immediate institutional requirements to
encompass wider urban amenities and engagement.
The approach is indicative of the continual battle
between institutions to provide the finest student
experience that will set a university apart from its
peers. Students want to be in campus settings that have
the energy and resources of an urban centre; they want
their campuses to be like cities.
The university as commercial urban
developer/revitalising master plans
To ensure that a campus remains valued and viable
over generations to come, it must prioritise flexibility.
This is the best safeguard against the vagaries of
architectural fashion and changing technology,
teaching methodologies and research priorities.
One of the key means of achieving this is through the
careful conception and implementation of holistic,
long-range master plans. So, Turnberry believe the
time-tested strategy of the ‘revitalising master plan’
will gather in momentum and sophistication as a tool
in the stewardship of the campus.
The revitalising master plan is understood as a
planning exercise of any scale that assesses existing
building stock and identifies opportunities for infill
development, landscape improvements and adaptive
reuse of out-dated or underused properties. Its goal
is to maximise the value of the university estate, to
deliver vibrant, efficient places of learning and living
against a background of pinched budgets, finite land
reserves and an ageing building portfolio.
Master plans of this kind typically adhere to the
following sequence: first, analysis of the existing
physical environment; second, the determining
of institutional principles and objectives; third,
identifying opportunities for refurbishment and
infill construction; and lastly, formulating campus
Jubilee Campus, University of
Nottingham (1999)
framework systems and related implementation
strategies, both short and long term. Customarily,
their scope extends some 10 or more years,
enabling institutions to plan for long-range growth
to create coherent yet flexible campuses.
Revitalising master plans are often formulated
to target a specific, underperforming area of a
university estate, as exemplified by ETH Zürich’s
scheme to transform its secluded, 32-hectare
satellite commuter campus into a Science City.
From 2006-2013, it implemented a phased master
plan consisting of infill building and diversified
land use aimed at creating a vibrant academic
community that will attract scientific talent from
around the world.
At Simon Fraser University, an institution based
on a secluded hill top 10km outside of Vancouver,
Canada, the university commenced construction
of UniverCity, a mixed-use residential community
adjacent to the main campus. Offering a mix of
shops, residences, a school and social amenities,
UniverCity was intended to add vitality to the
otherwise remote campus.
In the USA, the University of Connecticut has
since 1995 been developing its campus through
multi-billion dollar public-private partnerships.
When complete, every building on campus will
be either new or completely renovated. At James

Cook University, Queensland, a project called
Discovery Rise was launched in 2008 to remodel the
university’s suburban campus. The campus core will
be rejuvenated and a mixed-use urban development
built adjacent to it, capable of housing up to 8,000
residents.
Such planning exercises can also address the whole
of a University’s land holdings, as was the case with
Curtin University’s Place Activation Plan (2012). The
Place Activation Plan addressed previously limited
social, cultural and dining facilities at Curtin to
engage students once lectures end; the university
formerly became a ghost town once the sun had
set. The Place Activation Plan sought to create
meaningful places for community life within its
existing structure by introducing such devices
as comfortable seating, food carts, better street
lighting and visual interest.
Curtin exemplifies the campus typology for
which the revitalising master plan can be most
efficacious: the post-war campus. Around the
world, the post-war era brought the construction
of large numbers of whole-cloth campuses,
characterised by bold Modernist architecture
and rigid layouts planned to answer to the
requirements of the day. Today, many such
estates are now struggling to align their strong
but inherently unyielding original design vision
with the large surge in student numbers that has
occurred since their creation and the changing
demands of twenty-first-century education.
When carefully conceived and deftly applied,
revitalising master plans can remedy these
situations by providing a forward-looking strategy
for meeting long-term functional requirements
whilst creating the type of welcoming,
aesthetically pleasing spatial experience that
attracts students. As many post-war universities
reach their fiftieth anniversary or more, this
approach is becoming progressively more
valuable and prevalent.
Science City Master Plan, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich (2006-2013)
Summary
All the examples set out in this report illustrate
the key emerging trend: if universities are to be
competitive they need to be efficient and flexible;
an urban university can achieve this. If a university
is urban it can allow the public or private sectors
of the city or town to provide the café, gym,
residences etc, allowing it to focus its capital on
academic and research needs. This is not possible
in a suburban setting. For a university like Curtin,
the solution is to take the urban form of the city
and translate it to a suburban setting. The extreme
example of this is the Research Triangle Park (RPT)
in North Carolina. The RTP was founded in 1959 and
has grown to become one of the largest research
parks in the world. Covering 2,800 hectares, the
park is home to over 190 companies employing
50,000 workers and 10,000 contractors. It is now
contemplating the development of a city centre on
its site, along with a light rail system and 1,400
homes. This is notable given it is the doyen of
twentieth–century suburban campuses. If Curtin
is to remain competitive, the urbanisation of its
suburban campus is the only approach.
Curtin University Greater Curtin Master Plan. July 2015 17

Highereducationplaysan increasingly
important roleinthe competitiveness
of local,stateand nationaleconomies.
We now live in the age of the
knowledge economy, in which the
creation, transmission and validation
of knowledge has become a primary
stimulus for economic development.
In turn, this has led to a widespread
shift in government policy and practice,
as regional and national economies
attempt to gain a competitive edge. No
longer do natural resources or cheap
labour lead to economic prosperity;
rather, creative and scientific innovation
and collaboration drive growth. No
longer does Curtin aim to provide
tertiary education to Western Australia:
the amibition is much greater than that.
This new paradigm of economic development locates
universities as primary engines of economic growth.
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western
Australia’s economic outlook for 2015 acknowledged
that the economy is transitioning away from resources-
led growth, and will need to seek out new sources for
future growth. Higher education will be key.
Australia is a global leader in five significant and
diverse sectors: agribusiness, mining, tourism,
wealth management and education. The country
attracts 7.1 per cent of the world’s total international
students in tertiary education (2012), the fourth
largest market globally. In 2013-2014, the ‘education
services’ sector was worth A$15.7 billion dollars, the
fourth most valuable industry in Australia.
The country is renowned globally as an innovative
country, with world-class scientific and academic
institutions, high levels of investment in research and
development, modern ICT infrastructure and strong
intellectual property protection. It is also home to 20
of the world’s top 400 universities.
This is no coincidence.
Curtin School of Business and
Physiotherapy3. HIGHER EDUCATION AS A DRIVER
OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The university’s core business is derived from the
autonomous production and diffusion of knowledge
across research, teaching and innovation. This is
what makes the economic benefits of their activity
so significant, long-lasting and widely shared across
the economy. Higher education can enhance local,
regional and national economic development via
several sources of influence.
Universities as employers
By way of example, in 2011-2012, universities in the UK
generated 757,268 FTE jobs; for every 100 jobs created
within a university itself, a further 117 jobs were also
created by universities elsewhere in the country.
Furthermore, the off-campus expenditure from non-UK
students created or supported an additional 62,380
FTE jobs in the UK in 2011-2012 (total UK employment
in Spring 2012 was 29.6 million). Universities also
tend to create a diverse range of jobs, which leads
to a more resilient economy: just one third of the
jobs in UK colleges and universities are faculty; the
remaining two thirds are administrative and support-
staff positions. The growth of a university campus,
particularly of the likes of the urban, dense and
mixed-use type proposed by the Greater Curtin Master
Plan, will only benefit the local community, providing
employment and infrastructure to improve the lives of
local residents and meet the demands for labour from
Perth’s ever-growing population. In circumstances
Kendall Square, Cambridge MA
where there is a substantial international student and
staff body, the balance of payment input is even greater.
Universities as purchasers
Universities enjoy substantial purchasing power. In 2014,
Curtin’s ‘expenses from continuing operations’ totalled
A$839,922,000, of which A$505,096,000 was spent on
employee related expenses, and A$264,037,000 credited
to ‘other expenses’, including the procurement of goods
and services. This purchasing power is important. It
helps to stimulate the development of local and regional
businesses, and to improve the services they can offer.
However, university purchasing tends to be highly
decentralised, and efforts must be made to direct their
spending power to small local vendors, rather than
large national firms. Contractually requiring national
businesses to undertake joint ventures with local firms
can be a highly effective means of achieving this.
Curtin University Greater Curtin Master Plan. July 2015 19

Universities as builders
As universities expand and develop their often-
substantial real estate holdings, they can function
as anchors of local and regional revitalisation.
Taking into account the economic interest of the
local community is a win-win strategy that can
transform communities and benefit institutions. MIT,
for example, has since 2010 been working with the
broader community in Cambridge MA to develop and
vitalise Kendall Square – ‘the most innovative square
mile on the planet’. MIT is now poised to deliver a
dynamic blend of uses in this area, including housing,
lab and research space, retail, innovation space,
open space, and a dedicated facility for the MIT
Museum.
The Greater Curtin Master Plan, with its provision
for housing, retail and commercial units across
the site, has great transformative potential in the
Bentley neighbourhood, and for Perth as a whole.
The higher property values generated by the
improvements put forward in the Greater Curtin
Master Plan would generate increased property
taxes, benefiting both residential property owners
(whose property would be worth more), and the
government of WA. Universities tend to be able to
develop through recession and can acquire property
when values crash. A perfect antidote to boom and
bust economies.
Universities as workforce developers
Universities are responsible for developing the
next generation’s workforce by educating students
who graduate and assume public, private and civic
positions. This role, however, can extend beyond
conventional academic programmes. Universities
can conduct research on labour supply and demand,
as well as workforce development best practices.
They can enhance local job growth and economic
development by facilitating partnerships among
institutions, government, and industries in key regional
clusters to identify and fill specific areas of need.
Universities as drivers of productivity
Research shows that across the public and private
sectors, workers with greater knowledge and higher-
level skills are more productive. Analysis by the
UK’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
estimates that a one per cent increase in the share
of the workforce with a university degree raises long
term productivity by 0.25 to 0.5 per cent.
Universities as advisors and network
builders
Business advisory programmes – schemes that
channel faculty and student know-how towards
businesses – are the most common type of college
and university engagement in business development,
more so than local purchasing and hiring
programmes. Faculty, students and staff serve as
community resources through a variety of activities,
such as serving on boards of directors of local firms,
conducting research, providing consultation services,
and serving as interns.
Universities can also play a key role in facilitating
networks of local business representatives by
organising forums where they can meet and through
which they can access alumni and business networks.
Universities as incubators
Rapid technological innovation and its
commercialisation are the hallmarks of modern
economic competitiveness and growth. Universities
have a crucial role in developing technology
and catalysing its commercialisation, known as
incubation. In partnership with governments,
community organisations, training centres, large
businesses, and venture capital firms, universities
can offer valuable resources to incubator businesses –
including, simply, space in which to do business. The
economies around Palo Alto, the home of Stanford, or
Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, are a testament to the
academic power of universities. This is in addition to
all the other benefits of thriving university growth.

CURTIN
UNIVERSIT Y
PERT H
AIRP ORT
SWAN RI VER
Stirling Hwy
Leach Hwy
KwinanaFreeway
WestCoastHwy
StockRoad
Leach
Hwy
CanningHwy
Roe Hwy
Tonkin Hwy
MitchellFreeway
MURDOCH
FREMANTLE
UWA QEII
PERT H
CBD
STIRLING
CANNING
MORLE Y
Summary
It is hard to overestimate the economic powerhouses
that universities can become. Notwithstanding the
impact they lend to national competitiveness on a
global stage, as well as competitiveness at a national
level, they tend to be more resilient to recession
and boom and bust economic cycles. The most
successful and economically active universities tend
to be in the UK and US, principally due to the distinct
environments in which they operate.
Most leading universities in the US are private and
therefore quite competitive, while the leading state
universities are aligned to the private model. In the
UK, most universities are charities, and so are able to
act so as to promote the aims and objectives of the
charity. These are the two main university systems in
the world and the most economically relevant to this
study as a result.
Universities in the UK and US have the flexibility to
act privately or in the best interests of the charity,
and as a result they are dynamic, with commensurate
economic benefits.

Higher education is a complex, global
arrangement, made through an
intricate combination of international
networks, knowledge and trends
tied up in national higher education
systems, each of which is shaped by
policy, history, law and funding. At once
global, national and local, universities
are vital contributors to the economic,
social and cultural prosperity of a
nation, and of its global standing.
Across the world, a university degree
reliably grants an individual a lifetime of
better job prospects, higher income, and
better health. Increasingly, a degree is
required to enter the job market in many
developed countries. Not surprisingly,
student participation figures are rising
in both the developed and developing
world. Demand is also growing for more
advanced and specialised education
beyond the undergraduate degree.
Against this backdrop, Curtin seeks to become a
recognised international leader in research and
education by the year 2030. Currently one of the
top two per cent of all universities, Curtin has in
recent years made significant process climbing
the international universities rankings, making
significant inroads into the world’s top 300
institutions. However, Curtin must re-focus its
position within the ever-changing global competitive
market to continue along this trajectory to gain the
reputation and recognition it seeks. It must identify
and broadcast ways in which it can add value for staff
and students from Australia and abroad, and must
use these assets to promote its status as a top-tier
university.
In Curtin’s 2014 Annual Report, the University’s
Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor celebrated the
University’s success in recent years, and also
highlighted how it sought to achieve further
prominence in the global competitive environment.
The Chancellor Colin Beckett endorsed Curtin’s
‘world-class science and engineering faculty’, as
well as the University’s ‘commitment to providing
world-class education’. Professor Deborah Terry,
Curtin’s Vice–Chancellor, further promoted Curtin’s
reputation as ‘a research intensive university,
undertaking world-leading research in areas of global
significance’. Within the Capital Works summary for
2014, Curtin described its aim to bring ‘education,
research, innovation and culture together… to create
a world-class knowledge and innovation hub that
extends beyond just buildings’.
Within these statements and others found in the
2014 Annual Report are couched the major themes
of university and higher education competition
today:
- Research excellence
- World-class faculty
- Top-quality students
- Quality of teaching
- Academic freedom
- Financial stability
- Quality of campus environment
- Internationality
4. THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT

HOW DO UNIVERSITIES COMPETE?
Top to bottom:
Hoover Tower, Stanford University;
Building 10, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology;
King’s College Chapel, University of
Cambridge
The university market is stratified
into different university types serving
different audiences. Generally,
universities may be sorted into
two major groups. The first is elite
institutions, which produce most value
and conduct excellent research. At
these universities, demand always
exceeds supply. The second group is
usually mass institutions characterised
by large student populations, fast
national and international growth, and
an emphasis on teaching over research.
Clearly however, many universities
operate between these two poles. For
the sake of this report, focus will be
placed upon excellence in research.
Although Curtin University has a large
student body, and also benefits from
a strong international presence, its
position in the top two per cent of
global universities is testament to its
research-led approach.
Simon Marginson, of the Monash Centre
for Research in International Education,
argues that universities compete with each
other based on the ‘positional goods’ they
can offer to prospective students, families,
employers and graduates. The positional
goods in question relate to the fact that
some student places offer far better social
status and lifetime opportunities than
others. Hoping to attract more or better
staff and students, most universities aim
to maximise their value as producers of
positional goods, using a variety of methods
to do so.
Research excellence
The primary positional good valued in the
higher education competitive market is
research quality; the strength of research
output is a central component of all major
international ranking systems. This is
because the quality of research tends to act
as a barometer for various other positional
goods offered at universities – staff quality,
facilities, working environment, funding –,
as well as being an asset in its own right.
Put simply, research capacity, output and
quality define global competition in higher
education.

World-class faculty
Excellent universities need excellent staff. Top-
quality faculty benefit a university by generating
world-class research. At the very best universities,
a high concentration of talented individuals
should work across many academic disciplines,
collaborate with other leading researchers
domestically, and also with leading counterparts
around the world. World-class faculty are also
important in attracting the very best students,
earning research funding from various awarding
bodies, improving the quality of teaching and
contributing to a globally relevant academic
agenda.
Exceptional students
As international competition between universities
has intensified, institutions have come under
increasing pressure to attract and retain the very
best students. For universities, the most talented
students from home and overseas are vital to
create the stimulating intellectual environment
that characterises leading institutions. Attracting
international students can have multiple benefits
for universities. International students generally
pay higher fees, but they are also a means by
which additional talent can be attracted beyond
a national market. In Singapore, for example,
international students are courted by talent
scouts, are offered generous scholarships, and
have their tuition fees cut if they choose to stay
to work once they have finished their degrees.
International students tend to choose which
country to study in based on their perception
of the overall quality of a country’s higher
education institutions; so, attracting high-
quality international students is a hallmark
of a world-class university. For example,
Williams College is consistently ranked as the
best Liberal Arts College in the US. It spends
$100,000 per year to educate its students,
charges $60,000 in fees, but after discounts
and bursaries it only takes $30,000 per student.
This financial model delivers to them the best
students.
Quality of teaching
Although a focus on academic research is
central to world-class status, such knowledge
generation feeds through to the quality of
teaching experienced by students. The research-
led learning experience contributes to the quality
of teaching, enhances student experience, and
builds the high-level skills needed by society.
Ranking systems tend to subordinate teaching
standards in favour of the quality of a university’s
research but for students, the quality of teaching

All Souls College, University of Oxford
is equally, if not more, important. The ratio of
students to faculty members is often used as an
indicator of teaching quality, alongside student
satisfaction, course-completion rates, satisfaction
with teaching, and further study.
Academic freedom
Academic freedom is required at world-class
universities. Without academic freedom, a research
university cannot fulfil its mission, as academic
staff members and students may not be able
to pursue teaching, research, publication and
expression without restriction. This is an issue in
some countries but not in Australia.
Financial stability
World-class universities are financially stable, and
tend to command sizable budgets and significant
endowments. Elite institutions tend to derive their
funding from several sources: government money
for spending or research, contract research from
public and private sources, and earnings from
endowments, gifts and tuition fees. In recent years
Australian universities have suffered significant
declines in public funding, and so have had to seek
funding from other sources. Efficiency is significant
in a competitive funding environment.

an environment is formed through a thorough,
thoughtful and rigorously applied master
planning process. It is no coincidence that most
good universities are also great places – the two
go hand in hand. The Greater Curtin Master Plan
is a bold example of this practice in the twenty-
first-century; the provision of a dense, mixed-
use and highly flexible campus environment,
well-integrated with the surrounding urban
environment, is what Turnberry sees as the future
of world-class campus design.
Quality of campus environment
World-class campus facilities play a pivotal role
in a university’s ability to attract and retain
the most talented individuals from around the
world. Since the founding of the modern world’s
first universities 900 years ago, the idea of the
university has been inviolably associated with
the idea of place. At a lucky few universities, an
excellent campus environment has been created
organically over time. For most however, such
Christ Church, University of
Oxford
International university rankings
Higher education has long been an internationally
competitive business. Since King Henry II banned
English students from attending the University of Paris
in 1167 (to encourage them to attend the University
of Oxford), higher education on the western model
has been an internationally competitive enterprise.
However, in recent decades global competition has
intensified to never-before-seen levels. Advances
in global communications and increasing mobility
amongst students and researchers have led to an
international marketplace for higher education with
western, Anglophone countries emerging as market
leaders.
The internationalisation of higher education puts
pressure on universities to improve the quality of
the education and research they offer, as they now
must compete against universities worldwide, not
just regional or national rivals. Today, universities
are measured up against numerous ranking systems,
which are keenly observed across the globe by
students and university presidents alike. There are
now around 150 national rankings across the world.
Despite this, thanks to globalisation and the growth
of international student migration, competition has
shifted from the national to the international sphere,
with attention focused on three major university
rankings: QS World University Rankings (QS), the
Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings, and

the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU).
It is no longer relevant for Curtin to limit its ambition
to WA or even to Australia. The comments of the Vice
Chancellor indicate an ambition to be world-class.
The major ranking systems (QS, THE and ARWU)
produce their results using slightly different criteria and
emphases, like research citations, student-staff ratio,
reputation and proportion of international students.
However, all methodologies skew the data in favour
of English-language institutions, since English is the
lingua franca of academia and also the most common
language of instruction – researchers publishing in
English are likely to get cited more frequently than if
they had published in any other language, regardless
of the quality of their research. Citations also generally
skew towards science and technical subjects. While
THE and QS factor undergraduate experience as a
major metric in their ranking methodology (Teaching
Learning Environment representing 30 per cent of THE’s
ranking criteria), the ARWU ranking ignores this major
function of a university.
A strong presence on the international stage, indicated
by success in the three major rankings, is generally
understood to be a precursor to a university becoming
world-class – able to enter to premier tier of elite
institutions. According to data published by the THE
World University Rankings 2014-2015, an average
top–200 university has a student population of which
19 per cent are internationals, compared with 16 per
cent for a top-400 institutions. Furthermore, THE assert
that at a top-200 institution 43 per cent of all research
papers are published with at least one international co-
author. International presence is particularly relevant to
WA, a region some perceive to be remote.
By comparison, Curtin currently has 16.1 per cent
international students enrolled at its Australian
campuses (31 per cent of students are international
if off-shore campuses are included). According to
uMultirank, a university comparison service, 51.2 per
cent of Curtin’s research papers were co-authored with
international academics. All told, Curtin is recognised
for its strong international presence, confirmed by its
position as equal tenth in the THE World Top-100 Most
International Universities 2015.
Building 501, Curtin University

TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION 2014-2015
TOP 50 + AUSTRALIAN TOP 200
1 California Institute of Technology
(Caltech)
United States
2 Harvard University United States
3 University of Oxford United Kingdom
4 Stanford University United States
5 University of Cambridge United Kingdom
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT)
United States
7 Princeton University United States
8 University of California, Berkeley United States
9 Imperial College London United Kingdom
10 Yale University United States
11 University of Chicago United States
12 University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA)
United States
13 ETH Zürich - Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zürich
Switzerland
14 Columbia University United States
15 John Hopkins University United States
16 University of Pennsylvania United States
17 University of Michigan United States
18 Duke University United States
19 Cornell University United States
20 University of Toronto Canada
21 Northwestern University United States
22 University College London
(UCL)
United Kingdom
23 The University of Tokyo Japan
24 Carnegie Mellon University United States
25 National University of Singapore
(NUS)
Singapore
26 University of Washington United States
27 Georgia Institute of Technology
(Georgia Tech)
United States
28 University of Texas at Austin United States

29 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Germany
30 University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
United States
31 University of Wisconsin-Madison United States
32 University of British Columbia Canada
33 University of Melbourne Australia
34 École Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne
Switzerland
35 London School of Economics and
Political Science (LSE)
United Kingdom
36 University of Edinburgh United Kingdom
37 University of California, Santa Barbara United States
38 New York University (NYU) United States
39 McGill University Canada
40 King's College London United Kingdom
41 University of California, San Diego United States
42 Washington University in St Louis United States
43 The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong
44 Karolinska Institute Sweden
45 Australian National University Australia
46 University of Minnesota United States
47 University of Noth Carolina at Chapel Hill United States
48 Peking University China
49 Tsinghua University China
50 Seoul National University Republic of Korea
60 University of Sydney Australia
65 University of Queensland Australia
83 Monash University Australia
109 University of New South Wales Australia
157 University of Western Australia Australia
164 University of Adelaide Australia

As the Times Higher Education World
University Rankings for 2014/2015
indicate, the world’s best universities
are located in a select few successful
countries. According to the Times’
rankings, more than half of the world’s
top 200 universities are located either
in the US (74) or the UK (29). Three
other national university systems
reliably produce top universities in
significant numbers: Switzerland (7),
Canada (8) and Australia (8). Each of
these systems fosters to greater or
lesser degrees a combination of the
factors by which universities compete,
described at length ab0ve.
The United States
The US higher education system is incredibly
diverse – there are public institutions and private,
very large and very small, secular and religiously
affiliated, urban, suburban and rural. Though fewer
in number, private universities tend to dominate
the rankings, while public universities tend to fill
the middle and lower tiers. As well as diversity, US
universities enjoy significant autonomy from federal
government, and are largely decentralised. Instead,
state governments, local and institutional authorities
and non-government organisations play major
roles. The system obeys a capitalist model by which
market demand dictates how universities develop
– the market is trusted to provide the quality and
breath required to serve America’s higher education
needs. Size is a distinguishing feature of US higher
education. The scientific output of US universities is
unparalleled; they produce the most Nobel laureates
and scientific papers. Furthermore, the scale of the
US system allows for a broad range of university
types to exist together in one ecosystem. American
universities are also rich, with over 80 colleges
having nine-figure endowments. A combination
of autonomy, wealth, diversity, competition and
accessibility makes the US system of higher
education a world-leader.
The United Kingdom
The UK system for higher education differs to that of
the US, despite being one of the models that inspired
the American system. Until recent fee reforms, the
major distinction between the UK and the US was that
British universities tended to heavily rely on public
funds for their income. However, with the introduction
of raised tuition fees in England in 2012 and the
reduction in public funding that accompanied this,
universities in the UK seem to be moving towards
a more ‘American’ system. UK universities are also
diverse, and enjoy a high degree of operational
autonomy – amongst the most independent in Europe
when judged against a range of factors, including the
freedom to set budgets without needing government
approval, and freedom in recruitment and retention of
academics. The sector is very successful and educates
the country’s young people to a high standard and
brings great economic and cultural benefits.
The UK has a range of higher education institutions
that suit the many and varied skills and needs of
students. The leading research-intensive institutions
are highly productive as a result of their institutional
autonomy, coupled with a research-funding regime
based on excellence that concentrates resources in
the top-performing institutions.
Canada
Canada has eight universities in the Times top-200.
The country boasts one of the highest tertiary
education participation rates in the world, well ahead
of the UK and the United States. The Canadian system
of higher education is very highly decentralised,
with responsibility for higher education delegated
to the provinces under Canada’s constitutional
SUCCESSFUL UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS

federation. Public and private higher education
institutions exist within each province, although
public institutions far outnumber private universities.
There is no national ministry of higher education,
no national higher education policy, and no national
quality assessment or accreditation mechanisms for
institutions of higher education. In addition to its
world-class research universities, Canada has a very
strong system of community colleges. This diversity
certainly contributes to the country’s strengths. The
universities are largely state funded, although since
the 1970s the system has looked more towards the
university’s finding their own sources of income –
partially as a result, the country has some of the
highest universities fees in the OECD.
The two major sources of income for Canadian
universities and colleges are government grants
and tuition, but the balance between the two
revenue sources varies by province and has changed
dramatically over the last few decades. As federal
funding reduces and it is politically difficult to raise
tuition fees, universities are looking to international
student enrolment to make money.
Switzerland
With a population of just eight million, Switzerland
boasts one of the best university systems in the
world. The country offers a rich education programme
catering to various tertiary levels. It has two
main types of higher education institutions with
different educational thrusts: first are the traditional
universities, including the cantonal universities
and the federal institutes of technology, where
instruction is centred on basic research; second are
the universities of applied science, whose teaching
is based on applied research. The Swiss system is
oriented toward the Anglo-Saxon tertiary education
model, progressing through Bachelor, Master and
PhD qualifications.
Management of the university system is shared by
the Confederation, the 26 cantons and professional
organisations. The Confederation supervises
and funds the federal institutes of technology, is
responsible for research, and funds and legislates
on higher vocational education and the universities
of applied science. The cantons are responsible for
the universities and are their main source of financial
support, run the universities of applied science
and many colleges of higher vocational training.
Professional organisations are heavily involved with
universities, funding research and commercialising
the results.
There is generous investment at both federal and
cantonal levels in the tertiary education sector: the
country spends 2.2 per cent (2014) of its GDP on
research and development, double the EU average of
1.1 per cent. The Swiss system is largely so successful
because it fosters diversity. This is carefully
cultivated by policies combining the best aspects
of competition and cooperation. Switzerland also
enjoys a raft of geo-political benefits, which extend
to the higher education sector. The country is hugely
international, and one fifth of the Swiss student
body, more than half the post–doctoral students and
around one–third of the teaching body are non–Swiss
nationals. Universities in Switzerland have also
avoided the ‘massification’ that has occurred in many
other countries.
Summary
The United States, United Kingdom, Canada and
Switzerland all have rich traditions of quality
higher education. The four countries are home to
a broad range of institutions that boast excellent
research facilities and foster cultures that promote
intellectualism as well as academic freedom.
Most significantly, the university systems in these
four countries are functionally independent from
centralised government control over their operations
or institutional missions. The Western Australian
government strategy should aim to emulate the best
practices from the US, UK, Canada and Switzerland,
in order to enable its own universities the autonomy,
independence and flexibility required to grow
dynamically, with freedom to act and react on a
competitive global stage.

Curtin University is embarking on
an ambitious mission that, it hopes,
will see the university continue its
upwards trajectory to reach a place in
the top 200 universities worldwide.
Founded in 1966, and incorporated
as a university in 1985, Curtin can
learn from the success of other similar
universities that have grown into
world-class institutions in a very short
period of time. The post-World War Two
public university systems in California
and British Columbia represent two
environments that have fostered the
growth of universities founded in the
1960s into world-class institutions.
CALIFORNIA
The history of the public university system in
California provides probably the best example of the
transformation of post-war public universities into
world-leading institutions. California has the largest
systems of higher education in America. It is comprised
of three public segments of higher education created
by the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education:
the University of California (UC) system spread across
10 campuses, the California Statue University (CSU)
system across 23 campuses, and the California
Community Colleges (CCC), which is spread across
112 campuses. Over 300 private institutions, profit
and non-profit, also provide tertiary education in the
state. Several of the constituent UC universities were
founded in the 1960s, and have within 50 years grown
to become top-100 global universities.
The California Master Plan’s tripartite system was
designed to meet the growing demand for higher
education in the state, which was due to the GI Bill
and the subsequent population explosion of the baby
boom generation. The plan also helped to integrate
a disparate group of colleges and universities into
a coherent system, with each segment focusing
on a different mission to serve California’s diverse
research and teaching needs.
Within the system set out by the Master Plan, the
University of California was designated state’s primary
academic research institution, providing education
from undergraduate to graduate and professional
students. The UC maintained its exclusivity by
accepting only the top 12.5 per cent of the state’s
annual graduating high school class, which were at first
guaranteed a place at a UC campus, tuition free. The
California State University system would accommodate
WORLD-CLASS POST-WAR UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS:
CALIFORNIA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA
the top one-third of Californian students, educating
them through to master’s level. The California
Community Colleges were open to provide academic
and vocational institutions to any California resident
wishing to pursue postsecondary education. This
meant that each segment was able to concentrate
on creating a distinctive kind of excellence within its
own set of responsibilities. The master plan hugely
expanded higher education in California, and led also
to the emergence of world-class establishments across
the University of California system.
To cope with the influx of new students, each
segment was required to build capacity, not least the
University of California. In 1961, the UC undertook a
strategic review and adopted the University Academic
Plan, which proposed a nine-campus network
across the state. Even prior to this report, which
predicted that undergraduate enrolment in California
would reach 104,700 by 1985, it was clear that new
university campuses were urgently required.
University of California, San Diego
The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) was
established in 1960. Very soon after its foundation, the
institution developed into a world-class establishment.
UCSD truly ascended to the ranks of the world’s premier
universities in the 1980s, under the leadership of its
Chancellor Richard C Atkinson (p. 1980-1995). Atkinson
instituted a major administrative organisation of UCSD,
and strengthened the university’s ties with the city

Times Higher Education Ranking: 41; QS Ranking: 59;
and ARWU Ranking: 14.
University of California, Irvine
In less than fifty years, the University of California,
Irvine (UC Irvine) has grown to become one of the
most dynamic campuses in the University of California
system. The campus was founded in 1965 as part
of the California Master Plan for Higher Education.
Almost immediately, the campus developed into a
world-class university. Again, leadership played an
important role, and the university’s first chancellor
Daniel G Aldrich, Jr., who served from 1962 to 1984
was influential in the development of UC Irvine. Aldrich
intended to create a university in the ‘land grant
model’, one that would include the core disciplines in
letters, arts and sciences, together with a reasonable
mix of professional schools. That being said, the major
early achievements at Irvine were not so much in the
broader land grant tradition as in the twentieth-century
disciplines that enjoyed recognition and status at most
major universities, in the key departments of biological
science, humanities, fine arts, physical sciences and
social sciences. With access to a good resource base,
the chancellor was able to recruit excellent academic
officers who, in turn, were able to focus on the
appointment of a carefully selected group of scholars.
The result was an ‘instant university’ of great maturity
and stature. In 2015, UC Irvine ranked highly across all
major league tables: Times Higher Education Ranking:
88; QS Ranking: 153; and ARWU Ranking: 50.
of San Diego. This effort yielded important dividends
in terms of financial and community support, with
private giving rising dramatically during this period,
from around $15 million to nearly $50 million annually.
Faculty grew by approximately 50 per cent, and
enrolment doubled to about 18,000 students. UCSD’s
increasing academic stature was reflected in its 1982
election to membership of the prestigious Association
of American Universities, consisting of 62 of the
country’s top research universities. In 1995, the quality
of the universities research and graduate programmes
was ranked tenth in the nation by the National Research
Council. During Atkinson’s tenure the university also
founded CONNECT, the first incubator programme to
link life science and technology entrepreneurs with the
necessary resources for success.
UCSD’s outstanding faculty, innovative research, and
commitment to industry-university partnerships were
major factors in transforming the San Diego region into
a world leader in technology-based industries. In 2015,
UCSD ranked highly across all major league tables:
Geisel Library, University of
California, Irvine

University of California, Santa Cruz
Also established in 1965, the University of California,
Santa Cruz (UCSC) is another successful example
of the rapid expansion and development of a world-
class university within the public university system
in California. UCSC was developed on a relatively
remote site to a residential college system. According
to the founding chancellor Dean McHenry, the
purpose of the distributed college system was to
combine the benefits of a major research university
with the intimacy of a smaller college. The university
was intended to become a network of small liberal
arts-style colleges in close proximity to each other.
The university was a pioneer in terms of its
multidisciplinary and idealistic original vision,
as well as its architecture. UCSC was intended to
become a campus of 20 liberal arts colleges, each
approaching a liberal arts education from a different
perspective. Early concentration was on high
quality undergraduate education, with graduate,
professional and research programmes added
shortly afterwards. Again, a focus on acquiring
the best academic staff and providing them with
excellent facilities led to the beginnings of a world–
class research university. In 2015, UCSC ranked
highly across all major league tables: Times Higher
Education Ranking: 109; QS Ranking: 265; and
ARWU Ranking: 93
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Before 1945, the history of higher education in
British Columbia was almost synonymous with the
development of the province’s only public university.
The Second World War, however, marked the slow
beginning of a new ear of Canadian higher education.
As a result of a veterans’ rehabilitation programme,
53,000 veterans entered university between 1944
and 1951. By the early 1950s the size of the university
population was twice that of 1940 and by 1963
another doubling had taken place. As a result, the
provincial government of British Columbia abandoned
its initial strategy of trying to meet these increases by
expanding institutions.
Responding to growing pressure throughout BC to
address the long-term changes in demand for higher
education, the newly appointed University of British
Columbia President John B MacDonald offered to
conduct a survey and prepare recommendations in
1962. The result was the Higher Education in British
Columbia and a Plan for the Future, released in
January 1963. The report was heavily depended on
California’s three-tiered system of higher education,
and that British Columbia should establish a
similar ‘unified model. MacDonald proposed the
establishment of new universities in the province,
and more decentralisation to restructure the
increasingly inadequate higher education system. In
addition, the report recommended the stratification
Top to bottom:
Oakes College, UNSC
Simon Fraser University;
University of Victoria

of tertiary education, with the establishment of
numerous two-year community colleges offering
programmes in four major fields: academic, technical,
vocational and adult basic education. This ambitious
policy was not just a response to the pressures
of increased enrolments. It was motivated by the
belief, borrowed from the United States, that higher
education was a key to economic productivity and
would yield higher rates of economic returns both for
individuals and for society.
As a result of the MacDonald Report, several new
universities were founded in Canada, which rapidly
grew to become world-class. In 1963, British Columbia
passed an act to establish Simon Fraser University.
The University of Victoria was also established in
1963. A year later, the British Columbia Institute of
Technology (BCIT) was opened. In 1965, the first
community college recommended by the MacDonald
Report, Vancouver City College, was launched.
Simon Fraser University
Located 10 kilometres from central Vancouver on a
secluded hilltop, Simon Fraser University (SFU) was
built between 1963-1965 on a remote 480-hectare
site overlooking the city. The campus was built to
exacting architectural principles, which saw a dense,
linear environment designed to encourage informal
exchange and interaction. That same openness and
desire to innovate informed Simon Fraser University’s
current vision: to be Canada’s most community-
engaged research university. In 2015, SFU ranked
between 200 and 300 across all major league tables:
Times Higher Education Ranking: 226-250; QS
Ranking: 222; and ARWU Ranking: 201-300.
University of Victoria
Founded as Victoria College in 1903, the University
of Victoria (UVic) gained independent university
status in 1963, following the recommendations of the
MacDonald report. Situated in 5.7 kilometres north
of British Columbia, the new university’s annual
enrolment is now approximately 20,000. Much like
Simon Fraser University, the University of Victoria
very quickly grew to become an excellence institution
of higher education. This was a result of policy
support and high levels of funding. The university
performs well in international league tables: Times
Higher Education Ranking: 173; QS Ranking: 290; and
ARWU Ranking: 201-300.
The university system in British Columbia represents
a successful transfer of the principles set out in the
1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education
across national boundaries, to revitalise and grow
an existing university system. Despite not reaching
the heights of California’s public universities, Simon
Fraser University and the University of Victoria
represent what can be achieved in a short space of
time through good planning, appropriate investment
and astute delivery.
SUMMARY
The creation of the 1960 California Master Plan
for Higher Education marked a watershed in the
history of higher education around the world. The
success of the master plan demonstrates beyond
doubt that young, public universities founded in the
1960s are capable of transforming into excellent
institutions that sit comfortably within the world’s
top 100 universities. The California Master Plan
was successful for several reasons. Firstly, it laid
out a structured plan that enabled universities to
specialise and function in an ecosystem of different
tertiary education providers. Secondly, the plan was
supported by consistent public funding (although
this has been reduced in recent years). This enabled
the UC universities in particular to build good
campuses, hire good staff, and fund high-quality
research. Thirdly, the plan was not deviated from
in any major way during its execution. This gave
consistency and enabled long-term planning.
British Columbia’s emulation of the California
Master Plan demonstrates that the principles of the
scheme are transferable, although British Columbia
has not been able to recreate the levels of success
created in California. It is those universities – UC
San Diego, UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz – that Curtin
should seek to follow.

WHAT MAKES A GREAT MODERN
AUSTRALIAN CAMPUS?
University campus planning is a
complex discipline that involves
the reconciliation of an ideal set of
conditions, often outlined in a master
plan, with the circumstances local
to a university, such as the existing
campus environment, availability
of funding, climate, competition,
opposition and institutional appetite
for change. Essentially, campus
planning does not function in a
vacuum but instead is a highly
networked and intra-institutional
discipline.
It is therefore important to consider how other
institutions similar to Curtin University have
responded to the pressures and demands of campus
development particular to Australia. The institutional
identity of universities is not merely the product
of the global university trends outlined in the
previous two chapters of this report. Rather, it is a
5. AUSTRALIAN EXEMPLARS
product of history and retains national, local
and disciplinary roots. Place-bound identities
matter, and indeed can be incredibly important
in establishing a competitive, and distinctive,
identity on the international stage. It can be
extremely useful to learn from the experience of
others, and so six examples of campus master
plans at universities across Australia have been
selected and analysed, each with a bearing in
the process and application of the Greater Curtin
Master Plan. They are:
– Queensland University of Technology, QLD
– Discovery Rise, James Cook University, QLD
– University of New South Wales, NSW
– University of Technology Sydney, NSW
– Innovation Campus, University of
Wollongong, NSW
– City West Campus, University of South
Australia, SA
All six universities were founded after the
Second World War. They represent a broad
spread ranging from the immediate post war
years, through to the 1970s, 80s and 90s. The
projects undertaken at each campus range
Library Lawn, University of New
South Wales
from rationalisation of an existing site, the
construction of a brand new satellite campus,
and full-scale urbanisation through mixed-use,
densification schemes.

The Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
was founded in 1989, a result of the merger of
four predecessor institutions located in Brisbane.
The university accommodates more than 40,000
students and offers over 400 courses and
research programmes. QUT is ranked 285th
by the
QS Academic Ranking of World Universities, and
is ranked 28th
in the QS ‘Top 50 under 50’ poll.
In 1998, Queensland University of Technology
began working in partnership with the
Queensland Department of Housing and Public
Works to develop a 16-hectare brownfield parcel
of inner Brisbane, adjacent to QUT’s academic
campus at Kelvin Grove, to create the Kelvin Grove
Urban Village. From the outset, the partners
shared a vision of a mixed-use development that
would form an integrated and vibrant community
offering a mix of market, social and affordable
housing. The development is now an award-
winning residential, commercial and educational
precinct that includes health and recreational
facilities and features specific opportunities for
research and development in creative industries
and biotechnology.
The concept – a mixed-use district combining
university facilities, housing types, retail and
leisure activities – was then a radical idea in the
context of Australian higher education. At a
time when many other Australian institutions
were pursuing plans to diversify and establish
satellite campuses, QUT’s strategy was to focus
on enhancing the on-campus experience for its
members.
With a master plan by HASSELL (2000) based
on sustainable ‘urban village’ design principles
drawn from UK practice, construction began
in 2002. The project has been described as an
innovative use of the ‘normal’ planning system,
as the State Government did not use statutory
powers to establish a special planning pathway
nor any other means to establish the master
planned area. The result, as defined by HASSELL
in their 2004 master plan review, was
‘A diverse city fringe community, linking
learning with enterprise, creative industry
with community and unique living solutions
with public amenity… creating a new part
of Brisbane that offers a unique lifestyle
choice.’
QUT located its Creative Industries precinct
within the urban village, re-using historic
military barracks buildings alongside new
structures, designed and sited sympathetically
to preserve the site’s historic identity.
Throughout its actualisation, Kelvin Grove
Urban Village has been extolled as an
exemplar in forming new approaches to urban
master planning and development. Although the
Department of Housing and QUT embarked upon
the venture with different goals – respectively
to augment its affordable housing provision
and to gain a competitive advantage through
an urbanised campus experience – their dual
commitment to making an open, permeable plan
engendered consensus within the partnership. This
is a significant project for Curtin to review as the
counterpoint to the Greater Curtin plan.
KELVIN GROVE URBAN VILLAGE
QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
BRISBANE
Founded: 1989 (dates back to 1849)
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Project date: 1998~
Size: 40 acres
Architect: HASSELL (master plan)
Value: A$800 million

Built in the 1960s, the Douglas Campus at James Cook
University (JCU) typifies the design approach of the
time. Built on greenfield land 13 kilometres outside
central Townsville in Queensland, it grew as a sprawling,
car-dependent site. Although the area around the
university has since urbanised and is forecast to grow
in forthcoming decades, the campus itself remained
suburban, detached from the city, and at odds with JCU’s
aspirations towards sustainability. These conditions have
a number of parallels with Curtin.
In 2008, Discovery Rise was launched to remedy this.
The aim of the ongoing project is to recast and remodel
the Douglas Campus’s physical environment from an
isolated institutional estate into Discovery Rise, a miniature
university town seamlessly integrated with Townsville. It is,
in effect, a total campus retrofit. Over a two-decade period,
the campus core will be rejuvenated and vacant land at the
edge of the campus will be utilised to create a mixed-use
academic, residential, and commercial community housing
up to 8,000 residents.
Byco-locatinghousing, commercialandacademicunitsat
DiscoveryRise,JCUhopetocreateanewuniversitytownwith
adistinctivelyAustraliantropicalambiance.Sustainability
has been a core concern, with clever thermal-massing
strategies, shading and planting designed to reduce energy
consumption and encourage walkability across the site.
Mature trees have been retained and natural waterways
across the site enhanced, and additional public transport
options between campus and downtown Townsville have
been instigated to discourage car use.
DISCOVERY RISE
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
TOWNSVILLE
Founded: 1970
Location: Townsville, Queensland
Project date: 2008~
Size: 60 hectares
Architect: Architectus (master plan)
Value: A$1.3 billion
James Cook University and Architectus, the
architecture practice behind Discovery Rise,
have explicitly identified increased institutional
competition as a stimulus to the project. Citing
educational policy reform in Australia, from the 1987
Dawkins Reforms to the 2010 Bradley Review, the
transformation of the university system in Australia
to a demand-driven, commercialised system has led
to soaring ‘marketization’ of the university sector.
In order to appeal to the tastes of both national and
international students, JCU has sought to provide
an integrated, urban experience at their campus, in
contrast to the academic enclaves of times past.
Although still at an early stage, Discovery
Rise has the promise to spearhead a new
approach to tropical campus urbanism in this
environmentally conscious age. Like many
Australian universities, JCU was purpose-built
in the 1960s on greenfield land outside of an
urban centre. Fifty years later, this generation
of institutions is finding that its campus edge
has changed, as have the needs and wants of
students. In making an attempt to move from
a suburban to an urban environment, JCU has
provided a guide for other universities of the
same vintage to reimagine their campuses.

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) is a
public university headquartered in Kensington, a
suburb to the south east of Sydney. The University
was established as the New South Wales University
of Technology in 1949. Its curriculum was broadened
in 1958 and today it is one of Australia’s most
prestigious universities, though it has retained its
strength in the sciences and technology.
UNSW’s main Kensington campus is situated on 38
hectares of urban land, and is geographically divided
into two sections, the lower and upper campuses.
The former was vested to the University in 1952 and
1954, while the latter was vested in 1959.
Several key buildings were erected on campus
during its first decade, but it was not until the 1960s
that a true building boom began. A large number of
buildings were completed during this time, which
dramatically changed the face of the campus over a
relatively short period.
The first master plan for the UNSW campus was
released by the University Architect in 1976. In
summary, the master plan sought to provide ‘more
trees, more grassed quadrangles, new building but
no more towers, more covered ways and courtyards,
some demolition, better movement patterns for
people and cars and more parking spaces’. Iconic
buildings like the Sir John Clancy Auditorium were
also erected during this period. Aside from a
tendency to move away from provision for private
cars, these tenets remain central to campus master
planning the world over. It is no coincidence that
during the 1980s, once the recommendations of the
master plan had been implemented, the University
entered the top group of Australian universities.
The 1980s were a quiet decade for new construction
on campus, but were a key period for consolidation,
planning and rationalisation. In 1984 the campus
master plan was updated and in the same year the
Campus Life Environment Committee produced
a report on enhancing the general campus milieu.
1987 was a watershed year for campus re-
development. In February a Campus Development
Advisory Group was set up by the Vice-Chancellor
Professor Michael Birt to provide advice ‘on matters
affecting site development and beautification’. The
group’s first task was consideration and revision of
the 1984 master plan. On their recommendations,
David Chesterman was appointed as consultant to
produce a new master plan, which was approved in
June 1990.
The new Campus Development Plan was centred on
landscaping and pedestrianising the campus, with
many campus roadways closed to vehicles for the
first time and pedestrian precincts developed in
their place. Come May 1994, one hundred separate
projects had been officially commenced under
the various refurbishment, landscaping and new
building works – and many more followed before
the end of the decade.
In June 2005, the University’s Council endorsed
the Campus 2020 Master Plan. The plan
provided a blueprint for the development of the
campus until 2020; sustainable development,
improvement in cross-disciplinary interaction and
ease of movement around campus are some of
the key elements of the plan - thus ensuring that
re-development of the campus will continue into
the future. The transformation from University
of Technology to world-class institution offers an
apposite roadmap for Curtin to follow.
Founded: 1949
Location: Sydney, New South Wales
Project date: ongoing
Size: 38 hectares
Architect: N/A – numerous schemes
Value: N/A – numerous schemes
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
KENSINGTON
SYDNEY

The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) was founded
in its current form in 1988, although its origins as an
educational body date back to the 1870s. UTS had over
39,070 students enrolled in 2014, including 10,730
international students, placing it amongst the largest
in Australia. UTS is part of the Australian Technology
Network of universities: a group of five prominent
universities committed to working with industry and
government to deliver practical and professional courses.
UTS is based at its City Campus, located in the centre of
Sydney. The University has in recent years been pursuing
a wide-ranging master plan and campus review process –
the City Campus Master Plan, announced in May 2008 as
part of UTS’s twentieth-anniversary celebrations. The core
aims of the master plan are to:
- Deliver a revitalised campus that matches UTS’s
status as a leading university of technology;
- Create a global city campus with an identifiable
heart;
- Create a ‘sticky’ campus: a place where students
want to study, learn and socialise;
- Embrace new teaching and learning paradigms,
including a ‘library for the future’;
- Create a vital campus with a clear pedestrian
network and connections to adjacent transport,
commercial and cultural hubs;
- Commit to holistic sustainability goals;
- Consolidate faculty locations and student hubs;
- Accommodate future student and staff growth, 10-15
per cent by 2020; and
- Add 80,000 square metres of new floor area across
the City Campus.
Work on the A$1 billion City Campus Master Plan began
in 2008, with competition forecast for 2018. The plan will
deliver:
- New buildings, including a 13-storey ‘gateway’
building on Broadway, designed by Melbourne-based
architects Denton Corker Marshall, and the Dr Chau
Chak Wing Building, designed by Frank Gehry;
- New student housing, the Yura Madang Student
Housing Tower, to offer affordable student
accommodation in 720 beds situated across 13 storeys.
Completed in July 2011, the Yura Madang Tower brings
students directly onto campus and fosters a social
atmosphere, helping to create a ‘sticky campus’;
- Improved public realm and better wayfinding
across the campus environment, particularly at the
refurbished Alumni Green;
- New intra-campus pedestrian networks, including
the proposed closure of Jones Street to create a
pedestrian thoroughfare; and
- Refurbishment of existing buildings, including the
creation of a new ‘integrated learning commons’
comprising a new library and associated study spaces.
This is a fundamentally different scheme to the Curtin
Plan, but makes for an interesting comparison.
Founded: 1988
Location: Sydney, New South Wales
Project date: 2008~
Size: 38 hectares
Architect: unknown
Value: A$1.2 billion
CITY CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY

The University of Wollongong in New South Wales,
is a public research university based in the city of
Wollongong, approximately 80 kilometres south of
Sydney. Wollongong was founded in 1951, before gaining
independent status in 1975. In more recent times, the
University has developed into a multi-campus institution,
three of which are in Illawarra (Wollongong, Shoalhaven
and Innovation), one in Sydney, and two overseas in
Dubai and South Korea.
The Innovation Campus (iC) is a centre for Australian
innovation and research excellence, and a home to
a number of the University of Wollongong’s leading
research institutes. Since2005, amaster planhasguided
thedevelopment ofthe 33-hectare beachsidecampus,
whichhasdirectedthelocationanddesignofnewbuilding
tohelpusersdevelopnetworksandinteract with other
universityandprivate researchenterprisesonsite.With
around 25 buildings, and 135,000 square metres of office
and research space, it is anticipated that the campus
will eventually house 5,000 professionals across the
fields of ICT, research and development, multi-media,
security and intelligence, energy futures, biofutures,
nanotechnology, intelligent materials, financial and
professional services and engineering.
The various buildings at the iC are located on a
pedestrian spine leading to iC Central, an interactive
hub building offering a café, kiosk, conference facilities
and gymnasium. Banner buildings at the Innovation
Campus include the iC Enterprise-I, the fifth building to
be completed (in April 2011). The building won an award
for the Commercial Buildings Category (A$20 million to
A$50 million) of the New South Wales Master Builders
Association Excellence in Construction Awards.
Fromacampusplanning perspective,theInnovation
CampusatBrandon Park in Wollongong demonstrateshow
aworld-class,award-winning research andcommercial
precinctcan besuccessfullyfoundedin arelativelyshort
timeperiod,leading todramaticresultsforitsuniversity-
founder,localgovernment,andthelocalcommunities. The
campus is located one hour south of Sydney International
Airport, close to the Wollongong CBD and the University
of Wollongong’s main campus.
Themasterplan fortheiC wasdevelopedtosupporta
commitmenttocombineresearch excellencefromthe
UniversityofWollongongwithcommercialtenants,to
fosterinnovationandcommercialventures.Thecampus
providesstate-of-the-artcommercialofficespaceat
competitiverents,whichhasfosteredacommunity
ofinnovativecompaniesthathaveleasedofficespace
oncampus,attractedbythefacilitiesonofferandthe
opportunitytoco-locateUniversityofWollongong
researchers.
The Innovation Campus was established with seed
funding from the New South Wales Government, and
has received on-going support from the Australian and
NSW Governments, as well as Wollongong City Council.
However, the campus has suffered from a lack of industry
engagement and has failed to attract the funding or
interest it initially expected.
Founded: 1988
Location: Wollongong, New South Wales
Project date: 2005~
Size: 33 hectares (81.5 acres)
Architect: various
Value: A$500 million
INNOVATION CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

CurtinUniversity_Report_v7c [email]

CurtinUniversity_Report_v7c [email]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to CurtinUniversity_Report_v7c [email]

Similar to CurtinUniversity_Report_v7c [email] (20)

CurtinUniversity_Report_v7c [email]