Many studies on the role of environmental design in college campuses have focused on the influence of the properties of the physical place on users' individual and social needs. Factors like the effect of lighting, music, aroma, movable furniture, signs and symbols, artwork or posters, sittable spaces, open spaces, view, safety, connection to nature, ability to territorialize, legibility and wayfinding, and so forth, have often been studied for the purpose of examining good places on the campus. However, a campus community is not merely a good place in a sense that is 'about' something. It supports quality relations across cultural and disciplinary boundaries, and thus all multiple facets of both the physical and social environment are integral to the process of promoting social capital and the sense of community.Following this, the goal of this study is to investigate how people in a culturally and disciplinary diverse campus, use the physical place as a resource and/or are influenced by it in order to contribute to the process of generating and accumulating social capital and the sense of community. In other words, such a community is an ecology in which places, individuals, and groups are resources for one another. Therefore, diversity in this study is viewed as an outcome of creating settings that enable people to value, embrace, and use differences for their collective good (Kelly et al, 1994). Such social ecology represents the opportunity to share and exchange ideas and artifacts through bonding and bridging interactions in order to develop new knowledgeable, cultural, and personal identities. A qualitative study including interviews with a sample of students along with participant observation was conducted in the campus of UW-Madison in the US in order to identify patterns of place and community. Studies on environmental influences on psychophysiological stress-reduction (e.g. Ulrich, 1983; Evans, 1987), restorative environments (e.g. Kaplan, 1995), third places (Oldenburg, 1989), settings that are supportive of cultural diversity (e.g. Townley et al., 2011; Karl et al., 2011), learning communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991), place attachment (e.g. Scannel & Gifford, 2010; Lewicka, 2008), place identity (e.g. Proshansky et al., 1983; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996), bridging and bonding social capital (Putnam, 2001), and meanings of home (e.g. Moore, 2000; Tognoli, 1987) conducted this research. Finally, a number of themes emerged in relation to various attributes of socio-physical patterns and students’ experiences of those patterns.