黄瓜社区

Building a facility specifically for recreation was a novel concept when St. Louis University鈥檚 campus recreation center was named an Athletic Business Facility of Merit庐 in 1982. In the 35 years since, the definition of 鈥渞ecreation鈥� and its place in the college landscape has changed dramatically, as evidenced in AB鈥檚 collective roster of Facilities of Merit.

The Core Components

The campus recreation center has its roots in physical education facilities. Meant for instruction, these early buildings weren鈥檛 an inviting place.

The core spaces serving recreation 鈥� gymnasia, weight rooms, pools 鈥� have carried through to the dedicated recreation facility, and though the allocation of square footage has changed, few of those core spaces have disappeared from the blueprint, says Jack Patton of 黄瓜社区; Design in Des Moines, Iowa. 鈥淭here are a variety of core spaces that remain core functions inside the recreation center. Gymnasia have evolved into something much more light-filled, higher-volume, more multipurpose.鈥�

Some of the core components have stuck around because of simple structural durability. 鈥淭ake racquetball,鈥� Patton says, pointing to a sport that peaked in popularity in the early 1980s. 鈥淩acquetball over time has not been a core space, but it was built as a newly engaged activity, and unfortunately, the way they were built 鈥� hard, masonry walls, down in the bowels of the building 鈥� they just sort of stayed around. They have this 40-year legacy now only because they refuse to move.鈥�

A Social Revolution

Honored as a Facility of Merit in 1992, the campus recreation center at the University of Toledo was notable for breaking from the traditional 25-yard rectangular lap pool, heralding an age of lazy rivers, waterfalls and sunbathing shelves. 鈥淎quatics has changed from a regimented, deep-water, lap-lane-oriented activity to an almost-anything-goes philosophy,鈥� says Patton, adding that the 鈥減ush toward leisure water, shallow water, social recreation space is overlaid with a significant multipurpose consideration.

Fitness & Wellness

Fitness remains a core element of the campus recreation center, but the concept today is hardly recognizable from 40 years ago. 鈥淭he fitness spaces have ballooned and changed over time,鈥� Patton says. 鈥淭he layouts, the transparency of the spaces, the safety of that equipment, accessibility, has all impacted the design of spaces related to weights and fitness.鈥�

Indoor turf, modular fitness rigs, inclined and twisting jogging tracks, sleds and tires are all now common elements of the fitness floor. The same complexity of design has also spread to the group exercise studio. 鈥淭hirty years ago, what might have been called a dance room has evolved into group fitness,鈥� Patton says. 鈥淭hose spaces have moved from indoor to outdoor, from small and dark to bright and open, from poorly tuned finishes to highly tuned surfaces and materials, acoustics, and technological enhancements.鈥�

Where do we go from here?

Jack Patton offers his prediction for future campus rec centers: 鈥淚ntegrated. Some part of that is focused on wellness, and some part of that is focused on much broader clinical health, student health, and biomechanics analysis. Student recreation in the future is going to integrate more opportunities and more campus- and place-specific, purposeful outcomes.鈥�

Content is taken from the article that originally appeared in the April 2017 issue of聽漏Athletic Business with the title 鈥�.鈥� by Emily Attwood