By Paul Wuennenberg
What separates college residence halls from a basic hotel or apartment building? Oftentimes, it is the community spaces designed to facilitate social interaction, academic collaboration, and personal development. Whether they are student lounges, music practice rooms, lecture halls, kitchens, exercise facilities, or any number of other options, these spaces are pivotal in enhancing the overall college experience and fostering a sense of belonging. There’s just one catch. They don’t generate any revenue, at least not directly.
Virtually every new residence hall construction or renovation project will face the fundamental challenge of balancing cost efficiency with creating gathering spaces of different sizes, shapes, and uses. This ongoing tug-of-war involves housing officers on one side who advocate for designs that cater to students' known desires for communal areas and, on the other, campus administrators pulling for financially efficient models with more beds and maximum revenue potential. The importance of community space is undeniable, yet in an era when construction and renovation costs are skyrocketing, finding ways to affordably provide such spaces is a significant challenge. Fortunately, in most cases, this back-and-forth struggle doesn’t end with just one side emerging triumphant. Rather, they navigate a complex array of issues to make decisions that best serve their students and the institution's broader goals.
An emerging community feature on many campuses has been makerspaces. These collaborative areas often include 3D printers, computers, and other creative resources that allow students to pursue passion projects and explore equipment in their fields of study without feeling self-conscious or intimidated by their older peers. These alternative study spaces, appearing on campuses like Purdue University, Tennessee Tech, The University of North Carolina, and others, entice students and provide multiple benefits. However, on the other side of the issue, administrators may argue that these community spaces do not pack the revenue-generating punch of having more beds. Consider what the debate may look like at a flagship campus reporting some of its highest enrollment numbers in years and exceeding its occupancy. In those cases, it would be easy to imagine community spaces taking a back seat to projected revenue.
When this debate arises, the key challenge for campus housing departments lies in providing on-campus housing that meets student needs and desires while managing costs and generating revenue. This requires innovative approaches to hall design and programming, ensuring that they remain appealing and affordable. The most crucial aspect of providing community space is treating square footage as a budget. Every square foot represents a cost and needs to be planned meticulously. Establishing a square-foot budget early in the project is essential, and every project balances quantity and quality. Defining this balance, which is at the heart of each project’s challenges, helps determine the amount of square footage that can be built and the types of spaces that can be provided.
Consider a university that is looking to add 300 beds to its campus inventory. Several factors influence the construction quality (and thus the budget), including the building's structure, mechanical system, and exterior. These decisions are not trivial; they affect future maintenance costs, energy consumption, and the building's visual harmony with the campus. For illustration, assume a construction cost of $410 per square foot, with the building made of light gauge metal (to address lifespan concerns), utilizing a four-pipe mechanical system (due to an existing mechanical loop), and having a brick exterior (to match the campus style). In this scenario, the total square footage required for 300 beds varies with the unit type. Traditional doubles might range from 260 to 280 square feet per bed, including circulation and basic functional spaces. Semi-suite doubles generally require about 290 square feet per bed, and apartments 350-400 square feet per bed. This translates to a total area of 78,000 to 120,000 square feet, leading to a construction cost range of $32 to $49 million.
If the construction budget is capped at $40 million, this limits the project to a maximum of 97,500 square feet at the given construction quality. By optimizing the unit sizes to save 20 square feet per bed, an additional 6,000 square feet can be freed up for community spaces. This exemplifies the need for careful monitoring and judicious planning from the start of the project to ensure that the critical need for community space is met within budget constraints.
Even though construction projects can be broken down into expenses and potential revenue per square foot, it should not be forgotten that communal areas provide several key advantages that do not directly connect to those figures. For example, residence hall community spaces create opportunities for students to interact with their peers and to foster a sense of belonging; common areas such as lounges, study rooms, and shared kitchens encourage them to engage in informal conversations and build friendships. These spaces serve as a hub where residents can meet, socialize, and form meaningful connections.
These spaces also reduce social isolation, particularly for first-year students who may be living away from home for the first time and benefit from community spaces that help to counter feelings of loneliness and isolation. These can also attract a diverse group of students from different backgrounds, providing an opportunity to share experiences and perspectives, which can lead to cultural enrichment and the development of a more inclusive community.
Community spaces also strengthen connections to the campus’s academic mission by facilitating collaborative learning. Students can use these areas for group study sessions, project work, and academic discussions. The availability of comfortable and quiet spaces within the residence hall can be particularly beneficial for students who prefer to study close to their living quarters. They reduce the need for students to travel to campus libraries or study areas, saving time and increasing productivity. To better serve these needs, study lounges are often equipped with resources like whiteboards, projectors, and internet connectivity, making them suitable for collaborative work and group presentations. In addition, some residence halls may offer academic support services such as tutoring, mentoring, or peer-led study groups in these spaces to enhance academic success further.
Of course, not all community spaces are created equal. As campuses consider how they want to utilize this valuable space, they need to consider the characteristics of the students most likely to utilize it. There is definitely a maturation process that occurs in students over the years, and designers must understand that what works for first-year students may not work for juniors or seniors, as reflected in numerous conversations with student focus groups. For example, during an interview with students at a university that provided apartments for first-year students, they all sang the praises of having privacy and personal space. But when asked what they didn’t like about their experience, many of them shared that their friends had left after the first year because they could not meet many people. First-year students need to feel a part of the community and their institution, and studies have shown that their first two weeks on campus have a significant impact on whether or not they will stay at that university. It is important for first-year students to feel that they are part of a community as quickly as possible, and this should extend beyond the one created by the most immediate community members living on their floor or in their pod. First-year housing involves a delicate balance of challenging the student and pushing their envelope of comfort while also providing options for them to navigate their way through moments of respite or withdrawal.
Responding to this need should involve more than just labeling a room or area as community space. Rather, flexibility in design is key to expanding the opportunities for socialization. At one university, for example, a classroom adjacent to the residence hall lobby was equipped with a sliding wall, which provided the privacy necessary to host classes during the day but could then be pushed back to turn the space into a lounge during the evening. Similarly, one residence hall at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point includes a classroom (funded, in part, through academic budgets) that is used regularly throughout the day and can, with the classroom’s media equipment, turn into a movie theater at night.
In the end, the success of residence hall projects lies not just in the number of beds filled or the amount of revenue generated but also in the quality of the college experience they provide. Dialogue between housing officers and administrators must continue to evolve, ensuring that future construction and renovation projects reflect a commitment to both financial responsibility and the holistic development of students in a vibrant and inclusive campus community. As Von Stange, the assistant vice president for student life at the University of Iowa, noted about a recent renovation project, “Students sharing living spaces are looking for alternative places to gather or study. As a partner in the academic mission of the university, increasing the amount of study space is an emphasis in our building renovations. We believe these renovations will pay for themselves through increased satisfaction, as well as improved retention in the residence halls and at the university.”
Paul Wuennenberg is a principal architect at KWK Architects.
