While visually pleasing, the integration of vegetation and buildings in the landscape at UNC inevitably puts birds at risk.  We surveyed a sample of 40 buildings on UNC campus, and assessed the general bird safety level of each building.  We then placed it in a category of green, yellow, or red, according to the threat level, with green being least and red the highest threat.

Click Here to see pictures of all of the campus buildings examined in this project.

  Green Level Buildings:

Virtually all buildings feature glass windows of some sort, but some are much more bird safe than others.  We found the buildings in this category to be the most bird-safe.  Many of these are among the older buildings on campus, and were constructed before 1940. In general, they feature fewer windows, smaller windows, windows with significant amounts of "visual noise," and an architectural style that is less broken.
                                Aycock: 1924, Whitehead: 1939 -

Almost all windows contain "visual noise" such as blinds, curtains, air conditioning units, screens, or window bars, which help to deter birds. This was a trend found in many older residential buildings.

Greenlaw: 1970 - Greenlaw is one of the few modern buildings that was considered to be relatively bird safe. The building featured limited glass surface area, especially on ground floor.  Upper level windows had blinds or shades.

Kenan Labs: 1971 -  Minimal glass surface area, almost all windows have blinds or shades, limited vegetation around the building.

Memorial Hall: 1931, last renovation completed 2005 -  Contained very few windows, windows were all heavily shaded, and there was limited vegetation that may attract birds surrounding the building.

                                New East: 1861, New West: 1861, Old East: 1793, Old West: 1823,

South Building: completed 1814, Swain: 1914

This group includes Old East, which was built in 1793 and was the first building on campus.  All of them have minimal glass coverage, solid and uniform structure, and windows with visual noise such as very small framing, blinds, shades, and screening.

Yellow Zone Areas:

Many buildings were found to have both bird-safe and not bird-safe features. The main problem areas were large reflective windows and landscaping. Although retrofitting these structures to be more bird safe would still be highly beneficial, we see them as less urgent than those in the red zone.

Campus Y: 1907 -  There was reflective glass on windows without visual noise such as curtains or shades, but the window coverage was relatively low compared to other buildings
Wilson Library: 1929. Dangers included presence of vegetation that may attract birds and large reflective windows on upper levels, but lower level windows all contained high amounts of visual noise, and were protected by vegetation planted right against the building.
Stacy: 1938, recent renovation -- Most windows had sufficient amounts of "visual noise" through window panes, air conditioning units, and screens. A few newly replaced windows had no visual noise, and were visibly more reflective than the others.
Lenoir: 1939-- Although there was a large amount of glass surface area, most windows were protected by trees that were planted within 3 feet of the building, which is a distance that is considered to be bird safe.
Peabody Hall: 1913, Phillips Hall: 1919, Caldwell: 1912, Carr: 1900

These buildings had large windows, but the lower level windows featured visual noise such as shades, patterned metal fencing, and curtains, which all help deter birds.
Davie Hall: 1901 -  There was some moderate coverage by reflective glass and transparency at corners, but the building design blocked the view of the glass from most angles.

 Red Zone Areas:

 The following buildings performed poorly when tested against the bird-safe guidelines, and have been labeled as high risk.  These are the more modern buildings on UNC's campus. Of the 40 surveyed, all except two built after 1968 fell into the red zone.  The main reason for this is a shift in architectural trends towards increased use of large expanses of glass.

Caudill Labs: 2006. Dangers include many windows with highly reflective glass, located near a wooded area, broken spaces in building. Image 55, 56
Center for Dramatic Art: 1998. Dangers include a large expanse of highly reflective glass on lower levels, directly across from a large heavily wooded area.  The interior illumination at night may also attract birds.
Daniels Student Stores: 1968, renovation 2005.  Dangers include the large windows of highly reflective glass, areas of transparency, interior illumination at night, and being across from a wooded area.
FedEx Global Education Center: 2007.  While this building has many green features, we found it to be one of the least bird-safe buildings on campus. Dangers include the large expanses of reflective glass (including one entire face), transparency at corners and other areas, vegetation that may attract birds, interior illumination at night, and interior plants near glass walls. One aspect of the building that was good for bird safety was architectural decor on one of the glass walls, which creates visual noise that birds can perceive.

Fordham: 1998. -- Dangers include almost an entire building surface made up of reflective glass, and breaks in building design may confuse birds.   The vegetation will also attract birds.
Graham Student Union: 1968 -  The Student Union has a large surface area of highly reflective glass, as shown here. It also includes a glass covered walkway that may appear transparent to birds. There are also several planters around the building, which draw birds closer and put them at risk. Image 34, 35, 36
House Undergraduate Library: 1968. Dangers include the glass face on the lower level, combined with 24 hour interior illumination and large amounts of vegetation. Image 45, 46, 52
Sitterson Hall: 1987.  Dangers include the large areas of highly reflective glass at the lower levels, which are a risk for bird collisions.  The trees planted near the building will also attract birds.
Stone Center: 2004.  Dangers include the large area of reflective glass with interior illumination directly across from a wooded area, several other areas containing highly reflective glass, and large interior plants close to windows.
Wilson Hall: 1940, addition 1975.  Wilson Hall was the worst offender, both because of the lack of bird-safe features, and because of the fact that it is the biology building.  Dangers included the enclosed walkway, which is completely covered in highly reflective glass and surrounded by vegetation.  The bird decals on the glass, meant to resemble predatory birds, are also problematic because patterns on the glass are only affective when applied at closely spaced intervals along the entire expanse of glass. There is also an outdoor stairwell that is partially enclosed in transparent glass, in which birds may fly into and get injured trying to find a way out.
        A dead bird was found outside the Wilson Hall walkway during our survey of the building.     
Woollen-Fetzer Gym connection: 1975 -  This renovation to Fetzer gym has a long glass-enclosed walkway, which may appear transparent or reflective to birds. It has a few bird decals on the glass, but not enough to be effective.

What are the issues concerning birds and Wilson Hall? 

       There are dead birds lying near Wilson Hall so often that the building could be considered a population sink.  As one of the biology buildings, it should set a good example for bird-safe building guidelines.