"Relocation has been identified as a stress-producing aspect of life, one that challenges people's sense of well-being and ability to cope (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974; Fried, 1963; Mazumdar, 1992). It also is part of most people's experiences, more frequent in some cultures than others. Although much of the work on relocation has focuses on residential moves, a recent study has examined the relocation of an urban university. The study was designed to address three major areas of concern. The first was the issue raised in the earlier literature on residential relocation that identified moving as a stressful life event (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974). Our aim was to examine this process in a non-residential move. The second area of concern related to the role of participation in the planning for the move by the university members, other than administration, and whether impacts would be identified after the relocation. The third related to connections to place, place attachment and place identity (Manzo, 2003; Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983) and whether the moving of a university, a workplace and educational setting, impacted an occupant's sense of self. Although our research examined relocation in a single, urban university, which may be seen as setting limits to the generalizability of findings, the research raised a number of issues regarding relocation that warrAnt further consideration and development. The move was planned by the administration with little or no input from the different departments and offices in the university, despite efforts on the part of some faculty to influence the design of the renovated space and the move processes. An outside move specialist was hired to facilitate instrumental concerns, especially the packing and delivery of office furniture and equipment. A team of two faculty members and three students worked together to design a survey to tap the many potential consequences of the move on faculty, students, staff and administrators at the university. This survey was developed from a questionnaire and interview used in earlier research on relocation. It was pretested and distributed to the faculty, students, staff and administration of the university. It was a mix of scaled and open-ended questions. The survey included demographic questions, reactions to the new spaces and the new neighborhood, reactions to the university as a community, comparisons of the new and the original spaces, reactions to the move process, the technology in the new site, things (if any) missed from the original site, and an open-ended opportunity to add anything they wanted to include. The questions with multiple choices and rating scales were analyzed statistically. The explanation of choices and open-ended questions were content analyzed. Reliability of the coding was tested by a multiple coding procedure with three research team members participating at each analysis session. They worked toward consensus for the development of thematic categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss, 1987). The analysis of 480 surveys returned by faculty, students, administrators and staff members uncovered deep feelings about the move, concerns that the new space was not meeting their work or educational needs, and great disappointment about the building and its offices and classrooms. Problems were identified with technology (telephones, computers, copy machines and FAX service) that made the work of the participants difficult to address. Some people liked the "modern" designs of the renovated spaces. People also reported missing things from their old locations, especially a park that was across from old space and the nearby New York Public Library, a major research resource. The neighborhood in the original site, less than ten blocks away, was viewed as less congested than the new site that had heavier vehicular and pedestrian traffic, some of it generated by the Empire State Building across from the university. These concerns reflect important aspects within the context of people's daily lives, the way they go about their jobs, their classes, and the social relationships possible in an urban university. First, a move of any kind represents a rupture in routines, and in this case there was the need to create a new place where work and classes could function in an effective manner. Many occupants had difficulties in dealing with the technology and the new offices, most of them with rigid cubicle designs, and maintaining the pace of work that was associated with their different roles. The ability to move smoothly through a day, deal with problems, and use time productively was challenged by obstacles for which people were unprepared. There also were threats to respondents' connections to place and place identity (Manzo, 2003; Proshansky (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983). For many the relocation uprooted connections that had been established, components of place identity. The research offered a number of possibilities for ameliorating the consequences of relocation, including pre-move meetings and workshops to anticipate problems, discuss the concerns of people and to develop strategies to assist them prepare for the relocation. After the move it would be useful to acknowledge the existence of a formal adaptation phase, a settling into the building, with discussion groups and focus groups to address people's concerns. Moving is a stressful, difficult transition that challenges people's identities whether it is residential relocation or a university relocation. It can be viewed as creating an environmental deprivation (Mazumdar, 1992), a sense of losses experienced by those impacted. Moving places is a critical life experience that is central to the work of many environment and behavior professionals and can benefit from an open discussion of the consequences of a move. "