The Elephant on Campus

ELEPHANT THE ON CAMPUS

ELEPHANT THE ON CAMPUS

The building boom on college and university campuses following World War II produced a plethora of significant student housing structures across the United States. They were typically multi-story dormitories 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, often relegated to basement recreation lounges.

Fast-forward to the present day. Many of these workhorse student dormitories are still in operation. While they continue to generate significant revenue, deferred maintenance costs grow year after year. And though occupancy rates remain high, they are not meeting the needs or expectations of modern students. Countless universities and colleges face the dilemma of what to do with these elephants on their campuses. Should these structures be slated for demolition and replaced with new construction? Or are there ways to effectively renovate and modernize these buildings for the next 50 years?

The process of determining what to do with these 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.

SCB has guided numerous institutions through an evaluation process aimed at helping weigh the challenges and opportunities posed by both renovation and replacement. As outlined in the following pages, this process includes validating a facility’s location within the campus master plan, analyzing current structural and mechanical systems conditions and performance, studying the potential for modifications to the existing floorplan, and exploring strategies for building a sense of community. Also presented are a series of case studies from Arizona State University, Drexel University, Northwestern University, Ball State University, and Butler University which share how each institution approached their respective Elephants on Campus.

Every campus has one. The building that tours avoid. The eyesore we wish would just go away. The Elephant on Campus.

Campus Master Plan

Campuses grow and change over time, and 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 there supporting student life amenities nearby, like dining or fitness? 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.

Structure and Enclosure

If the building still fits within the overall campus master plan, an institution should proceed to evaluate the building’s structure and enclosure. Many of these 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 and challenging. Combined with other faults with the building including layout, unit design, future flexibility, density, etc., replacement may become the most efficient option; however, if the structure can be re-used, it can yield anywhere from a six to 10 percent cost savings.

Building Systems

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 have produced far better performing systems.

Perhaps the most complex aspect of evaluating a building for renovation or replacement is studying the overall program and floor plans. Overall, the building must be measured against today’s standards. Does it help build community? What amenities does it offer residents? Does it support student life? This step becomes a bit more nuanced in that institutions must not only look at the current conditions, but also at the potential for the building to be altered to meet new standards and needs.

Program and Floor Plans Cost and Value

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. Each of the aforementioned factors can be opportunities or challenges in any given project, and each will have cost implications, whether they are financial or program-based. For example, it may be less expensive to renovate, but if the end result is a residence hall that does not meet the needs of today’s students, is it worth it? Likewise, it may be easier to replace a building, but is that at the cost of losing a campus icon? The knowledge gained through the evaluation process provides a strong foundation on which to base an ultimate decision.

MANZANITA ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Originally designed in 1967, the 15-story Manzanita Hall was the tallest building in Arizona when it opened. With its unique geometric exterior design, the dormitory immediately became an icon on the Arizona State campus. However, after over 40 years of housing more than 40,000 students, the residence hall was in poor condition and no longer served student needs. ASU hired SCB to conduct a feasibility study to explore renovation or replacement strategies for the 810-bed residence hall. The study revealed that replacement would be a far easier undertaking; however, the University ultimately decided to renovate the building due to its iconic character and the importance of its place in the memories of alumni. ASU retained SCB and Studio Ma to work with American Campus Communities to complete a full renovation of Manzanita Hall.

PROJECT EVALUATION

Criteria

MASTER PLAN

Located within a campus residential district and adjacent to academic core.

STRUCTURE AND ENCLOSURE

Solid concrete structure, with consideration given to potential limitations of post tension slabs. Completely failing enclosure.

BUILDING SYSTEMS

Full replacement needed.

FLOOR PLANS

Amenity spaces confined to basement and ground floors, potential for addition to add community space on residential floors.

COST AND VALUE

Cost of renovation less than comparable new construction, preservation of a campus architectural icon.

CASE STUDIES

The renovation sought to improve physical and social connections, increase natural light into the building, and integrate technologies for today’s increasingly connected students. The design team found an opportunity to add two-story communal lounges and kitchens within new “found space” by extending the original northwest exterior wall to the L-shaped shear walls and adding floor-to-ceiling glass. The original exterior bracing is now part of the interior, demarcating each lounge’s mezzanine.

Working within the constraints of the existing building, the design team reconfigured the floor plans to accommodate a more efficient layout, consisting of

semi-suites composed of two double-occupancy rooms with a shared bathroom. Significant physical surveying and space planning ensured that the new floor layouts for suites and bathrooms did not interfere with the building’s existing structural elements. The planning for the new plumbing chases faced challenges due to existing post-tension slabs and interior shear walls, which could not be eliminated or encroached upon. The decision to reuse the building established the University’s commitment to sustainability, which became a priority for the project. Manzanita Hall achieved LEED Silver.

CASE STUDIES

CASE STUDIES

The new building envelope was designed to work with the existing structural bracing system expressed on the exterior of the building. By eliminating the existing infill windows and wall panels and setting the new exterior wall behind the structural braces, the design team visually accented the iconic braces, giving the building a more crisp graphic character. This solution also allowed for the new enclosure to run uninterrupted behind the braces and consequently perform at a higher thermal efficiency.

Originally constructed in 1969, Bentley Hall at Drexel University typified a common challenge faced by many universities: a large, in this case 406-bed, residence hall that was outdated and no longer serving the needs of students. SCB was selected as the architect and interior designer for a full renovation of the existing Bentley Hall and an 11,000-square-foot academic addition to serve as the new home for the Pennoni Honors College.

PROJECT EVALUATION

Criteria

MASTER PLAN

AND

BUILDING SYSTEMS

Full

FLOOR PLANS

Acceptable

COST AND VALUE

Cost

NAME

Bentley Hall and Pennoni Honors College

Renovations of the original Bentley Hall included a full building systems update and complete remodeling of the student residential units and bathrooms. Lounges adjacent to the elevators were added to each floor, and alternate between social and study uses to help build a sense of community amongst residents.

The ground floor was reimagined and connects seamlessly to the addition, which houses three seminar rooms, quiet study space, and a “living room” for the honors college. This rich, programmatic mix provides abundant options for students and faculty to gather. The interior design for the space takes cues from the original mid-century vintage of Bentley Hall including exposed brick walls, modern furniture, and lighting inspired by the era.

The new addition provides the Honors College with a new identity and is differentiated from the larger Bentley Hall through a modern stone and glass architectural expression. A front porch extending the length of the addition enlivens the Arch Street façade with outdoor seating and an unobstructed visual connection to the interior spaces. The second floor houses a suite of offices for faculty and Honors College staff, organized around a central shared lounge.

Two existing residence halls on the Northwestern University campus were adjacent to each other, but not equal. Elder Hall, designed by Holabird, Root and Burgee in 1959, had a central dining center and a variety of amenities. The smaller 600/610 Lincoln Hall, also constructed in 1959, was converted to a co-ed residence hall in 1976 after serving as the home of Tau Delta Phi fraternity. 600/610 Lincoln Hall offered limited amenities to its residents.

PROJECT EVALUATION

MASTER

AND

BUILDING SYSTEMS

Feasible

FLOOR PLANS

Limited

COST AND VALUE

Cost

After evaluating the program needs and existing amenities within each hall, SCB proposed building an addition to connect the two structures and create one larger residential community. Nestled into a formerly underutilized courtyard, the modern, light-filled “link” integrates the two existing structures and serves as an inviting central entry point to the new Elder Hall. At night, the structure glows with light from within to animate the landscaped entry courtyard.

Beyond providing practical circulation between the residences, the addition also offers small seating areas

on each level for spontaneous interactions between students or for quiet contemplation and study. A new elevator within the addition provides access to each residential floor. On the top level, a new rooftop terrace offers panoramic views of the campus and Lake Michigan.

The existing shared spaces within each of the buildings were enhanced and redesigned. Additionally, new recreation and multi-purpose spaces were designed to support student life, as well as provide the entire complex with a new identity.

CASE STUDIES

At Ball State University, the enclosure of Studebaker East, designed by Walter Scholer & Associates in 1965, was failing and needed replacement; however, the structure of the building remained sound. 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. The overall organization of the building essentially created two separate vertical housing sections. After an extensive investigation, SCB, along with Schmidt Associates as Architect of Record, determined that the structure could be economically renovated and redesigned to meet the current campus’ needs.

FLOOR PLANS

COST AND VALUE

CASE STUDIES

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 vocabulary, 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, multi-purpose 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, enhances social connectivity between floors.

On the residential floors, SCB maintained the existing room layout with a central the existing room layout with a central corridor to each wing. A radiant heating and cooling valance system was incorporated into the student rooms as a non-invasive way of incorporating new low-energy environmental systems. Moveable and stackable furniture allows students flexibility to personalize the rooms to suit their needs. The building has achieved a LEED Gold rating.

Schwitzer Hall was built in 1956 as a women’s dormitory at Butler University. The three-story, 450-bed collegiate gothic building enjoyed a large front lawn along Hampton Drive and was located next to the Atherton Hall, Butler’s student union. SCB was engaged to complete a feasibility study to explore whether the University and their development partner should renovate or replace the aging facility. The building posed a variety of challenges for renovation. Its siting with its generous lawn was not the best utilization of land, its mechanical systems had reached end of their life cycle, low floor-to-ceiling heights and narrow floorplates offered no planning flexibility, and the building had significant ADA 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 their campus residential experience. The building was demolished and Irvington House was built on the site.

PROJECT EVALUATION

FLOOR PLANS

COST AND VALUE

The new 183,000-square-foot freshman residence hall was re-sited closer to Hampton Drive, preserving a significant parcel of land for future use. The building offers 647 beds (30 percent more than Schwitzer Hall) organized in semi-suites. Shared community amenities include social lounges, group study rooms, a fitness center, communal kitchen, and an indoor bike room. A large, ground floor multi-purpose room supports student organizations, Greek chapters, and other campus programming. Two faculty-in-residence apartments provide residents the opportunity for enhanced academic engagement.

design

limestone. A pair of large campus-facing courtyards provide two distinct outdoor programs: one more social with a fire pit and ample lounge seating and one designed as a quiet, contemplative space. The siting and massing of the building were developed to optimize solar orientation and mitigate heat gain, as well as maximizing opportunities for daylighting within the building. Irvington House is LEED Gold.

The

presents a modern complement to the collegiate gothic campus aesthetic while respecting the materiality of campus through its use of brick and

ATHERTON ALIGNMENT

FUTURE ACADEMIC BLDG. FOOTPRINT

RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE ALIGNMENT

ATHERTON HALL

RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE

CASE STUDIES

Design for a changing world.

Solomon Cordwell Buenz (SCB) is an architecture, planning, and interior design firm with a thoughtful design vision and a dynamic national imprint. Since 1931, SCB has made a lasting visual impact on campuses nationwide. From offices in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Seattle, we offer our expertise to institutional clients across the country, helping them achieve their goals, serve their students, and create unique campus environments.

Our diverse practice includes libraries, academic buildings, student unions, teaching and research laboratories, student residence halls, dining halls, athletic facilities, and offices for faculty and administrative staff. Our designs are responsive, responsible, and distinctive. We’re future-oriented, continually challenging ourselves to innovate at every level and design to a higher standard.

Design for a changing world. Architecture | Planning | Interior Design www.scb.com