by Jim Curtin
Every campus has at least one building that the community quietly (or sometimes not so quietly) wishes could just disappear. Maybe it’s a relic from those student boom days when many residence halls were multi-story buildings designed to house the maximum number of students as efficiently as possible. The structures were often minimalistic in design and incorporated materials of lasting legacy, including cast-in-place concrete, brick, and strategic use of asbestos. Amenity spaces were limited, maybe offering little more than basement recreation lounges.
Fast forward to the present day when these workhorse structures are still in operation. They may continue to generate significant revenue, but deferred maintenance costs grow year after year. Occupancy rates remain high out of sheer necessity, but they are not meeting the needs or expectations of modern students. What’s a housing department to do? Should these structures be slated for demolition and replaced with new construction? Are there ways to effectively renovate and modernize these buildings for the next generation? Is the answer something in between?
The process of answering such questions and determining what is next for aging structures can be daunting. There are multiple factors to consider and often contradictory voices and competing priorities from the various stakeholders involved with campus housing such as residential life, student services, dining, finance, facilities, and security. It is important to address these questions strategically and, despite the visceral response the buildings can elicit, to not make a decision out of emotion or haste. To manage that process, campuses should pursue an evaluation process that weighs the challenges and opportunities posed by both renovation and replacement. Factors to consider include the value of a facility’s location within the campus master plan, the condition and performance of current structural and mechanical systems, the potential for modifications to the existing floorplan, and strategies for building a sense of community.
Examining a campus’s master plan is a reminder that housing is not the only department evolving on a college or university campus. The entire campus is growing and changing over time, and, as a result, land uses shift in response to new priorities and opportunities. The first step in the evaluation process is to confirm that the building’s function and location are supported by the campus master plan. Is it still located in a residential district or in a place that makes sense for housing? Are supporting amenities like dining or fitness located nearby? Is the site accessible and along transportation routes? Although anomalies exist on every campus, these significant housing structures have a major impact on the campus and its future growth. In addition, the building should be considered in relation to any greater sustainability goals for the campus as a whole. If the existing building does not work within an institution’s overall plans, it should be studied for demolition and relocation.
At Arizona State University in Tempe, campus leaders were wrestling with what to do with the 15-story Manzanita Hall, the tallest building in the state when it opened in 1967. Its unique geometric exterior design made it a campus icon, but after four decades and more than 40,000 students it was in poor condition. While a feasibility study originally revealed that replacement would be easier than renovation, the building’s importance to the campus and in the memories of alumni took priority. The decision to renovate was further supported by the fact that it was located in a prime spot within a campus residential district and adjacent to the campus’s academic core.
The resulting renovation sought to improve physical and social connections, increase natural light into the building, and integrate current technologies. Two-story communal lounges and kitchens were created within new “found space” by extending an original exterior wall and adding floor-to-ceiling glass. The original exterior bracing is now part of the interior, demarcating each lounge’s mezzanine. The design team also reconfigured the floor plans to accommodate a more efficient layout, consisting of semi-suites composed of two double-occupancy rooms with a shared bathroom. In the end, the decision to re-use the building established the university’s commitment to sustainability, which became a priority for the project. Manzanita Hall achieved LEED Silver certification.
Once it is determined that the building supports the overall campus master plan, the next step is to evaluate the building’s structure and enclosure. Many of these older facilities typically have a heavy concrete structure designed for permanence. The cost of structural upgrades to meet current building and seismic codes can be significant. If there are other challenges with the building – such as its existing layout, unit design, future flexibility, and density – it may mean that replacement is the most efficient option. However, if campuses can re-use a structure, it can yield between a 6% and 10% cost savings.
The solid structure of Elder Hall at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, made the decision to remodel rather than replace a relatively easy one. Elder Hall and its neighbor, 600/610 Lincoln Hall, were both constructed in 1959, though the latter had received some renovations in 1976. While both offered a limited number of the amenities current students expect, the bones of each were strong and sturdy. Capitalizing on that infrastructure, an addition was constructed to connect the two structures and create one larger residential community. Nestled into a formerly underutilized courtyard, the modern, light-filled link integrated the two existing structures and became an inviting central entry point to the new and improved Elder Hall. Beyond providing practical circulation between the residences, the addition also offered small seating areas on each level for student interactions or for quiet study. A new elevator within the addition provided access to each residential floor. On the top level, a new rooftop terrace offers panoramic views of the campus and Lake Michigan.
The next step in the evaluation process is a thorough review of the building’s mechanical systems, including HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection. In many cases, these aging systems have met the end of their life cycle and are performing inefficiently. Even if a facilities group has maintained these systems through a strong replacement and deferred maintenance program, technological advancement and innovation likely has made those systems obsolete.
Such was the case for Schwitzer Hall at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana. Built in 1956 as a women’s hall, the three-story, 450-bed collegiate Gothic building featured a large front lawn and was located next to Butler’s student union. A survey showed that its mechanical systems had reached the end of their life cycle, low floor-to-ceiling heights and narrow floorplates offered no planning flexibility, and the building had significant accessibility issues. After a thorough investigation of the building’s structure, systems, program and floor plans, it was determined that replacement would yield the university the best value, both in terms of budget and students’ campus residential experience.
The building was demolished, and Irvington House was built on the site. The new 183,000-square-foot first-year residence hall was re-sited to make better use of the available land and is filled with a full complement of amenities. In addition, the design presents a modern complement to the collegiate Gothic campus aesthetic while respecting the materiality of the campus through its use of brick and limestone.
Perhaps the most complex aspect of evaluating a building for renovation or replacement is studying the overall program and floor plans. To do so, the building must be measured against today’s standards for fostering community, amenities, student programs, and the like. This step becomes more nuanced in that institutions must look not only at the current conditions, but also at the potential for the building to be altered to meet new standards and needs. When Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, was exploring options for its Studebaker East residence hall, campus leaders knew it was failing but also that the building’s structure was sound. One of its design oddities was that the building was accessible through two separate entrances – one with access to floors one through five and the other providing elevators to floors six and above – in essence creating two separate vertical housing sections.
Through the study of circulation patterns and view corridors, it was determined that the primary focus of activity was at the southwest corner of the building. The existing community bathrooms located at this point were demolished and relocated to make way for a new stacked two-story lounge addition and main entrance. By using the existing building’s form and material, the addition seamlessly connected to both the original structure and overall campus design. The new entry was raised above grade level to allow for a green plaza and landscaped terraces. At the ground level, a two-story multipurpose room was added to serve as the main community destination in the building. Above, a series of two-story communal lounges, equipped with kitchen spaces on alternate floors, enhance social connectivity between floors. On the residential floors, the existing room layouts were maintained with a central corridor to each wing.
In this final step, an institution must weigh all the information uncovered through the evaluation process against cost, long-term value, and overall impact on the university. In this case, the terms are not restricted to their monetary definitions. Each of the aforementioned factors will have cost implications, whether they are financial or program-based.
In each of the above examples, the final decision of how to move forward was reached after navigating a complex algorithm that explored each factor through the unique lens of the institution. Such decisions rarely are cut and dried, but the knowledge gained through the evaluation process provides a strong foundation on which to base an ultimate decision.
Jim Curtin is a principal with Solomon Cordwell Buenz and leads SCB Chicago’s Campus Environments practice. He also was a founding member of the ACUHO-I 21st Century Project.
