Tosome, they are icons. To others, they are eyesores. Regardless of the opinion, high-rise residence halls have left an indelible mark on a score of American college and university campuses. As building codes, demographics, styles, technologies, and needs have shifted today, these halls – many of which have marked more than a half-century of service time – are considered outdated relics. That leaves campus leaders to navigate a critical decision-making process as they choose to determine what the future holds for these buildings.
While there is no one correct answer
for all campuses, there is a common set of factors to consider when deciding whether to renovate, demolish and replace, or simply demolish. There
are questions of campus need, overall costs, sustainability, and less tangible factors, such as the opportunity for the housing program to
modernize facilities and connect more closely to the academic mission and
student experience. There are the feelings of the thousands of alumni who once
called these halls home (sometimes delivered quite vocally). And there are the
considerations of just how much life is left in these buildings. As Kasey
Price, the director of education solutions at MGT of American Consulting, notes, whether it is old
cars or appliances, everyone talks about how things in the past were built to
last. “The same can be said about many of these buildings. They have good bones
and were built to last. It can be worth it to invest in these halls and
maintain their usefulness for today’s students.”
High-rise residence halls (defined as those
at least eight stories or 75 feet tall) began to emerge in the early 1960s when
a series of developments led to unprecedented growth in campus populations. As
members of the Baby Boomer generation reached college age and the 1958 National
Defense Education Act provided the first federally funded grants and subsidized
loans for college students, campus populations popped. Later, the 1965 Higher
Education Act expanded need-based grants and loans and created work-study jobs,
outreach, and support service programs for students from low-income backgrounds,
which led to another growth spurt. This all meant that successful campus
housing programs of this era were challenged to meet any number of needs. Aside
from the sheer numbers game, there were considerations of the type of housing
required by returning veterans arriving on campus with their families as well
as the need for sex-specific residence halls and sometimes whole segments of
campus.
Recognizing this, in 1963 the federal
government passed the Higher Education Facilities Act, which authorized “the grant or loan of federal funds to assist public and other
nonprofit institutions of higher education in financing the construction,
rehabilitation, or improvement of academic and related facilities in
undergraduate and graduate schools.” This meant that colleges and universities could borrow funds from
the federal government at relatively low interest rates to build residence
halls, and many of the high-rise residence halls standing on campuses today
were built with loans authorized under this act. All in all, according to Inside
Higher Education, undergraduate enrollment in the United States “increased
45 percent between 1945 and 1960, then doubled again by 1970.”
Not only were funds easier to access, but high-rise buildings were an
economically sound way to reduce overcrowding. In her book Living
On Campus: An Architectural History of the American Dormitory, author Carla Yanni wrote about architect John
Merrill speaking at the 1950 ACUHO meeting and stating that “five stories is about the limit that you will ask people to walk up,
and you will put in elevators. There is additional [sunk] cost.” The
implication was that once a campus has invested in an expensive bank of
elevators, there is no reason to stop at five floors; to maximize the square foot
costs, builders could expand the footprint vertically. Similar logic also likely
held for the reliance on community restrooms, which were centrally grouped and
serviced by a contained water and plumbing system.
With their sleek, towering shape, their flat façades, and the repeating
rows of windows, these high rises looked downright space-age. As higher
education was becoming more available at the same time as modern leaps were
being made in the development of satellites and rockets, these halls reflected
the era. Economic efficiencies and modern design were exactly what many campus
administrators were looking for. As a result, these concrete towers – usually
housing first-year students in low-frill, double-loaded corridors with rooms
for two to four individuals – sprouted across the country, particularly on
larger public campuses in land-locked urban settings. These towers could house
400-600 students, usually with 32-48 students per floor. Occasionally, they
would include centralized lounges near the elevators on each floor, with a few
couches and maybe a television. With little community space available, students
often went to the student unions to socialize, the gym to exercise, or the
library to study. For better or worse, these halls generally fit the stereotype
of focusing merely on heads-in-beds.
Today a new generation of
administrators are reviewing their master plans and assessing their buildings
to determine the best path forward for this mid-century architecture to meet
current-day needs. When Price and other consultants gathered input from student
focus groups, they recognized that the two most important considerations were
an affordable price point and privacy. While these high rises, as built, may
offer the former, they do not have as much of the latter. As technology becomes
more prevalent and increasingly wireless, there is a greater desire to gather
and study anywhere, which means that housing needs more social and
collaborative spaces of different sizes. Centralized restrooms may still
accommodate residents of an entire floor, but now architects are finding ways
to offer increased privacy, with sinks located outside the private bathrooms
for quick grooming and socializing. The ground floors and lower levels that in
the past featured minimal amenity space now typically include spaces for
special programming, a laundry area with lounges, community kitchens, fitness
areas, and other flex spaces.
Determining whether to renovate or
replace requires campuses to look both outward and inward. Market-demand
analysis, enrollment forecasting, and student input will illuminate how many
beds a campus needs moving forward and what features they should include. A
business pro forma and other fiscal analyses will show what it could cost and
what can be charged. This all comes along with having a clear understanding of a
building’s foundational condition and how different housing codes have evolved
over time. How an institution assesses these factors will vary from campus to
campus. Larger institutions often have facility management and maintenance
staff who are well-versed in their understanding of the conditions of campus
infrastructure. In the case of public institutions, the state, which ultimately
owns the buildings, is also likely to perform regular assessments of campus infrastructure
and building conditions. Smaller campuses (or larger ones desiring a deeper
exploration that goes beyond a staff’s capabilities) can hire architects and
engineers as consultants to make these determinations.
Clemson University is in the midst of renovating
the three high-rise halls in its Bryan Mall community. Though this is a major
project even at its smallest scale, a thorough assessment and feasibility study
would show just how extensive it could be. For example, the buildings’ frame
was steel encased in concrete and was graded favorably as still solid. However,
standards regarding local earthquake and lateral resistance requirements had
changed over the years, necessitating modest upgrades. Similarly, the egress
requirements had changed dramatically. Now, at least one egress stairway is
needed to provide direct access to the outdoors, stairwells and elevators are pressurized
to ensure smoke-free evacuation, and easily accessed fire alarm rooms and a fire command center will be established
near the main entry of each building. These were relatively straightforward
changes to make, but they still had to be considered in the mix.
There are several other aspects to assess
before pursuing a renovation. Inspectors must look for water intrusion within a
building’s envelope. Decisions must be made if an HVAC system needs to be
replaced and, if so, what significant changes will have to be made so the building
can accommodate the new systems. For example, is the floor-to-floor height
adequate to accommodate modern-day ductwork, sprinkler systems, electrical systems,
and other parts of the infrastructure? Inspectors must also consider environmental
factors and the abatement of dangerous materials. Most every commercial
building constructed before the late 1970s likely has asbestos, and with any
major renovation, the abatement of asbestos and other hazardous materials needs
to be factored into the schedule and budget. Ideally, this can be done
separately prior to the general construction, but this is often not possible without
destructive testing.
Along with assessing the physical
structure, campuses must also consider the project’s effect on housing
operations. It’s never a small choice to remove a building, and this is made
even more difficult when that building holds a considerable portion of the
student body. Plus, a noted factor in student satisfaction with on-campus
housing is having an overall inventory balance in terms of room types and room
rates. The choice to renovate may or may not necessitate a move from the
traditional high-rise double-loaded corridor to a suite-style space. Both are
still common. However, the choice to replace a high rise with new construction
may mean accepting a higher price point per space for the students.
This was the situation at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison where three high rises opened from 1963 to 1965. Sellery, Witte, and Ogg halls housed a total of approximately 3,300 students. Jeff
Novak, the associate vice chancellor for finance and administration and
director of university housing, explains that the assessment showed that it was
cost-effective to renovate Sellery and Witte, but Ogg should be torn down and
replaced by two new halls. As part of the renovation, new walkways connected
Sellery and Witte at each floor, and new elevators and floor lounges were added
to the central section, along with expanded restrooms. Plus, an additional floor was constructed in each building, leading to another 250
beds that compensated for the bed space displaced by the renovations and accommodating
undergraduate enrollment growth. “By putting all new mechanicals in the new
structure, it allowed us to stay occupied during the two and half years of the
renovation,” Novak explains. “This saved tens of millions of dollars in
revenue. Even with the longer renovation schedule, there were not enough
dollars to be saved by having the halls unoccupied during renovation.”
Whether the choice is to renovate or
replace, the process provides campuses a chance to rethink and reimagine the
space. Beyond the basics of new finishes and a fresh coat of paint are
considerations such as entrance schemes (Do the current buildings still relate
to the broader campus in the same fashion as when they were first constructed?);
connecting the indoors and outdoors (How can outdoor patios, lawns, and grassy
areas enhance the building’s viability?); modernization (Are hall-style or more
semi-private wet core restrooms preferred?); and increased flexibility of
spaces (What features beyond beds and baths can a hall hold?).
When the University of Cincinnati
renovated Calhoun Hall, a 13-floor hall originally opened in 1967, it was still
able to house approximately 800 students but now does so in a way that meets
current standards and expectations. As part of the $80 million project, the
entire building was widened by three feet, which might not sound like much, but
it allowed larger rooms and wider hallways throughout. Community space was
moved out of the basement and lower floors and distributed across all the
floors, with common areas that feature natural light coming through new large
windows. The ground level was refreshed to include classrooms, common space for
gatherings, a communal kitchen, and laundry facilities. As Carl Dieso, the assistant
vice president of housing, noted when the hall celebrated its reopening, “The
basement space of the 1967 structure was not the most conducive to building
social ties nor for study collaboration. This renovation is the opposite. It is
the right environment to begin to make lifelong friends.” Novak expressed
a similar critique of some of the older buildings. “Halls of the 1960s did not place a lot of emphasis on
community space. Our focus in the renovation was to provide great space
for resident collaboration and community building.”
Updating
halls to meet code requirements and student preferences also means the
opportunity (and, in some cases, requirement) to meet sustainability metrics. Part
of the review process is an examination of the building’s energy
performance since most buildings from this era lack tight thermal envelopes,
have minimal or no insulation, and often have poorly performing windows. Improving
all these factors, combined with a modern HVAC system, should greatly reduce
the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), driving down operating costs and
conserving energy. Prior to renovating, it can be useful to review gas and
electricity bills for recent years to determine the EUI and operating costs of
the existing facility. Current energy codes will likely lead to reduced
consumption and costs, but it is not difficult to exceed these code minimums. A
life cycle analysis can be considered to determine the savings over time and
the overall carbon reduction.
The latest MGT
survey asked respondents to note the sustainability features of their renovated
facilities and if they were incorporated to conserve resources, improve student
quality of life, or both. Some were relatively easy modifications, such as
adding water bottle filling stations or converting to LED or CFL lighting
fixtures. Other popular ones included air quality controls, HVAC system
efficiencies, energy-efficient windows, and building envelope insulation.
At the University of Cincinnati, updating the exterior
of Calhoun Hall allowed natural light
to enter common areas while an insulated wall system muffled the noise from the
street immediately outside. “We were seeking light in each living and gathering
space,” says Rob Knarr, senior project manager of UC Planning + Design +
Construction. “Moreover, the insulation value of the wall panels provides a
much tighter and more efficient building envelope. This along with the
insulated windows, the generous natural light, and other energy-efficiency
features related to energy use and water usage is expected to earn this
building LEED Silver Certification from the Green Building Council.” Other
sustainability efforts included switching to LED lighting throughout the
building as well as reusing approximately 87,000 cubic feet of concrete.
At Clemson, the
sustainability improvements from the renovation will contribute significantly
to the campus’s goal of being carbon neutral by 2030, creating a balance
between emitting and absorbing carbon. When weighing renovation against the construction
of space for the same number of beds, it is important to note that renovating
always results in fewer carbon emissions. This is due primarily to the fact that
in renovation most of the materials will remain, which bypasses the tremendous energy
required to demolish and dispose of construction waste. This becomes all the
more significant when considering the sheer size of a project like Clemson’s.
After all the assessments and
considerations, sometimes the decision of what to do with a high rise can just
come down to the bottom line. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently
renovated two halls ostensibly to repair a significant failure of the piping
system in the air conditioning risers. “Our considerations were related to
resident safety with the possibility of catastrophic flooding, cost, timing of
the project completion, and improving the resident experience,” says Alma R. Sealine,
executive director of university housing. Once the commitment to that
renovation was made, though, the decision was made to also include replacing
windows and the exterior façade, adding new finishes and furniture, converting
group bathrooms to individual-use bathrooms, and expanding lounge and office
space. All this carried a price tag of $55 million. Still, Sealine clarifies,
“when we compared the cost of building new, we found the cost would be more
than three times the cost of renovation due to the size of the facility.”
Similarly, at Clemson, the master-planning process showed that demolishing and
building new halls would be more than twice the cost of renovating.
Colorado State University's high rise renovation project started as a need to replace windows that were more than five decades old and were opened by hand cranks. This led to replacing obsolete hardware and improving the building's thermal performance. As a cash-funded project, they had to take care to control expenses. “It was much more cost-efficient for us to renovate than it would have been to deconstruct and build something new on the same site," says executive director Mari Strombom. “The structure of the building is solid and more durable than anything we could afford to build, and we could not give up the beds in Westfall Hall for more than one year, which was possible with a renovation.”
This was also the case at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As Novak notes, the renovations that will serve his campus and its students for decades to come carried a greatly lower cost than a new build and demonstrated the university’s commitment to caring for its resources. “One of our main core values in university housing is stewardship. Our stewardship is demonstrated through our commitment to care for the human, financial, and natural resources entrusted to us by our residents.” Additional savings came because “we were able to add individually controlled air-conditioning to each resident's room. An additional benefit of the model was adding a new floor on each building, thereby gaining 250 new beds. These beds were constructed at half the projected cost of new beds.”
As housing leaders and their campus colleagues
study, create, and implement their upcoming master-planning processes, the
analysis of existing spaces will continue. While the future of these iconic
spaces may play out in different ways depending on financial constraints and
campus needs, it is clear that the history of how they came to be with us can
and should be honored as the modern campus evolves.
Kathy Bush Hobgood is the associate vice president for auxiliary enterprises at Clemson University in South Carolina. Thomas Carlson-Reddig is a partner and community practice leader for Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. "Before" cover photo courtesy of Clemson University. "After" cover rendering by the Boudreaux group.