Key Idea 2: Determine future plans for former single-family residences

The university has acquired many smaller structures over its long history including former residential buildings and outbuildings. The influx of students after World War II necessitated construction of larger buildings and complexes for housing, academic, and administrative uses to support the growth of the institution, but the smaller structures continue to be utilized to serve the needs of the UVM community. Resources for the maintenance and upgrades, ADA access, historic preservation, or other issues factor into the discussions about the future plans for smaller buildings. The pandemic has shown that changes to higher education are necessary including ways to meet the needs of the institution by carefully considering every decision strategically. .

Examples of former single-family residences:

475-479 Main Street Allen House, 461 Main Street

Jacobs House, 146 South Williams Street Booth House, 86 South Williams Street

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES

Confirm the university-owned structures to be assessed, including any associated outbuildings such as garages and carriage barns.

• Review all available existing building lists and reports, campus and historic district maps, and listings.

Identify assessment criteria for each structure.

• Compile and review all available information including historic, structural, deferred maintenance, ADA access, location, and utilization reports to identify criteria. • Review comparable criteria used by other institutions including management systems such as AssetWorks.

Apply criteria identified to assess structures to a sample list of structures to test the recommendations for the future plans for buildings including renovation, adaptive reuse, divestment, or removal. When feasible, sell or lease the former single-family residences while maintaining control of the property.

• Discuss using a scoring system to be applied to the assessment criteria. • Use renovations including Nicholson House, 109 South Prospect Street, and Wheeler House and Carriage Barn as benchmark projects to understand potential costs, and precedents in handling ADA, historic preservation, and other considerations. • Review recent building assessments and studies for information about sample structures. • Discuss key UVM offices and positions who should participate in applying and reviewing the assessment criteria in the future.

Wheeler House, 133 South Prospect Street Nicholson House, 41 South Prospect Street

Former Single-Family Residences

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 UVM Property Boundary

The former residential buildings, often historic houses, on the edges of campus have a unique set of needs when it comes to renovation or adaptive reuse. When renovating a historic house, some recommendations to consider include: • Regulated historical status • Building character • Building location relative to continuity of campus character, image, and district definition • Deferred maintenance backlog including envelope, structural, electrical, and mechanical systems • Accessibility: both building entry and internal circulation • Life safety including egress, fire alarms, and fire protection • Alignment with program units or academic missions such as student or faculty residence, department, or administrative unit, or “centers” or other programs that can fully occupy a house effectively • Potential for future residential use

The former residential structures shown in the map are divided into three phases, with Phase I being the highest priority to assess as outlined in Objectives 1-3.

Strategies for re-use of historic former homes can range from targeted renovations, to providing accessibility, to extensive renewals, creating a new identity for the building. In all cases life safety and accessibility should be prioritized. This example project proposes upgrades to a historic, former residential building: First Floor The first floor is made accessible by providing a ramp that is integrated into the landscape, departs from the original entrance path, and arrives at the same point central to the floor plan ensuring a parallel entry experience. The first floor has a new accessible bathroom and kitchenette. These facilities support public use of the first-floor meeting rooms and offices. This level of the building would be available to all building occupants for public interaction in an accessible environment.

Second Floor Minimal interventions are proposed for the second floor. Clutter is removed from the central hallway providing a clear understanding of the distribution of rooms on the floor. Smaller spaces are combined into medium sized offices.

Third Floor Third floors of former residential buildings are often repurposed attic spaces without the detail and generous room size of the lower floors. As such, this third floor is conceived as an open flexible office space. Desks line the perimeter of the space and are supplemented with tables for small meetings and storage space. Office activities are supported by a new conference room, social lounge, and kitchenette.

Entrances

An accessible entrance is added

Conference Rooms Collaboration Spaces

Open style work spaces