ED 071 .555

TITLEINSTITUTIONPDB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUIIElIT RESUME

HE 003 680

Student Housing.Educational Facilities Labs., Inc., New York, N.Y.Sep 7284p.Educational Facilities Laboratories, 477 MadisonAvenue, New York, New York 10022..(S2.00)

MF -S0.65 HC-S3.29*College Housing; *College Students; *Design Needs;*Dormitories; *Higher Education; Housing Needs;Student Needs

ABSTRACTTraditional dormitories are out of step with the

concepts of higher education that make the 4 years of college acultural and social experience as well as a period for gatheringinformation on academic topics. These experiences are not served wellin twin-bed rooms lined along both sides of corridors that lead onlyto stairwells or gang bathrooms. This publication is about economicalways to provide better housing for students. It advocates humanizingexisting dormitories by changing-the stan'ard double rooms intosuites of bedrooms sharing a living room..For colleges needing newresidences it recommends building suites or apartment -typeaccommodations since colleges that have used these approaches reportwarm response from their students. The book also touches onalternatives to traditional methods for obtaining new residencesthrough management techniques, leasing buildings or forming co-ops.These variations on the old processes can provide superior facilitiesand also circumvent the fiscal bind where colleges have operatingexpenses by not enough capital funds. (Author/HS)

U S DERAR (MEN! OP HEALTH,EOUCATON 8 WELFAREOFFI4,E OF EDUCATION

ItH.; 1..)0C,tkik%, HA.; capRo00.",tf) EYACTL. a5 RtcEi'vED FROMTHE 1-ERSCis. OR 3 PGA%1Z4TioN ORIOihtswiNi.; IT POI TS or OR ORINIONS STAItD UV NOT NECESSARILYRERRESEN AL 1.,,ICE OF EOUCATION POST r,i,N tot pok#cy

Board of Directors

J. E. Jonsson. ChairmanHonorary Chairman of the Board, Texas Instruments, Inc.

Alvin C. Enrich. Vice ChairmanPresident, .Icademy for Educational Development, Inc.

Clay P. BedfordDirector, Kaiser Industries

James C. Downs. Jr.Chairman of the Board, Real Estate Research Corporation

henry I )reyfussCorpora/ e Advisor

Morris Duane. !Horne y, Duane, Mop r ic UM' II et k 01(7

Harold B. Gore:sident . Educational Facilities Laboratories

Philip KlutznickChairman of the Board, Urban I PreeS1 Meld and

Development Company

Martin IeyersortPreside nt , Universit y of Pennsylvania

Milton C MumfordMember of the Board and Former Chair nnrn,LeZTT Brothers Company

Howard S. TurnerChairman of the Board,Turru r Construction Com pony

Benjamin C. Willi.:Edueat ion a/ Consultant

Officers

Harold B. Gores. President

Alan C. Green. Secretary and Treasu..er

Staff

John R. Boice. Project Direr for

Ben F. Graves. Project Director

Peter Green. Editor

Larry Molloy. Noir( t Dire( for

Frances F. Shaw. Librarian and lit sear( h Issociate

Lillian Sloves. Publications. .Issociate

Danae Voltos. Information issmiate

Mary ry C. Webb..I oistant Treasurer

Ruth Veinstock. Research .Issm rate

Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.

Educational Facilities Laboratories. Inc.. is a nonprofitcorporation established by The Ford Foundation to helpschools and colleges with their physical problems by theencouragement of research and everimenta,ion and thedissemination of kmos ledge regarding educational fa-cilities.

I

ti.., Student Housingr---c)enLa

A report from Educational Facilities Laboratories

First Print in Septeiniwr 1972

Library of C 'onttress 'atalog N. 72-87894

Copies of this publication are available at .2.00 flouti FL, 477 \ venue. >.e%% \' irk N V. 10022.

It's different now . . . . .......What do students want?

Search for Identity.. .

Talking with Student,.

Coeducational Li\ ing

What's Become of the Dining 11;01'

Off Campus Blue, . . . . .

The Uncertain Future . . .

Freedom from Paternalism

Student .1ctivist,

Recycling old dormitories . . .

Mas,achusetts In,titute of Tochnolotz)

Univer,ity of Kama, . .

Mankato State College

Univer,ity of Ma,.sachu,ctt,. .

The American Cniver,it)

Oberlin College

Florida State Univet city

Bowie State College

Michigan State Univer,ity

Georgetown University

Living-learning residences . . .

University of Denver

Cornell University

. . .

7

11

11

12

13

15

17

17

19

20

21

22

23

25

25

27

27

28

29

29

30

. 31

31

33

Michigan State University

University of Michigan

Cluster College;

Student apartments

Management techniques

University of Vermont

I lampshire College

Univer,ity of Mar) land

Leased Facilities

Industrialized building

New Jersey Campuses

Cniven,ity of Delaware

Bard College

n iven.ity of California

1 lou,es on \\*heel,

Preserving the urban fabric

Cooperation an answer for some

Where the money comes from

The Federal Government

Educational Authorit ies

Appendix

Information Sources

34

35

35

38

40

41

43

43

45

46

46

47

47

48

49

51

54

61

62

63

65

Providing housing for students is more than justthrowing up a barrack block and calling it some-thing or other Hall. Traditional dormitories are outof step with the concepts of higher education thatmake the lour years of college a cultural and socialexperience as well it's a period for gathering infor-mation on academic topics. These eNperiences arenot served well in twin-be(l rooms lino) along bothsides of corridors that lead only to stairwells organg bathrooms. Housing should offer students adelight in living so that they can behave as individ-uals at one moment and indulge their gregarious-ness the next.

Phis Et Publication k about economical waysto provide better housing for :tudent.... \\e advocatehumanizing existing dormitories by changing thestandard double rooms into suite, of bedroom,sharing a living room. For colleges needing new res-idences we recommend building suites or apart-ment-type accommodations since college-. that haveused these approaches report warm response fromtheir students. The book also touches upon alterna-tives to traditional methods for obtaining new resi-dences through management techniques. leasingbuildings or forming co-op:s. These variations on the

old processes can provide superior facilities and alsocircumvent the fiscal bind where colleges hale oper-ating expenses but not enough capital funds

Budgets were once blamed for most of the in-sufficiencies in student housing. but. as this bookshows. a lot can be done with a little money if theadministration is amenable. Rules of conduct can berelaxed at no cost and yet considerably change theambiance of a dormitory. \Viten the rule: relax andthe rooms- are converted into 'suites. the studentsfind themsek es in a different world. And it is pre-cisely a world that different from the rigorous ac-ademic life that many students. want.

I lowever, another approach is simultaneouslyfindifig favor: the unseparating of living and learn-ing so that the building where students live becomesa place where they also learn. It doesn't work for allcone ;e situations. but it ,uceeed with motivatedstudents and could convert a lot nuire.

Student Ilousint: was researched for tint. byGeorge Buchanan. Valerie Lucznikowska and HonWatson and written b\ Judy Tolmach. The chapteron cooperative housing draws on material writtenby John Piercey for the Academy for Educational1)e\1401)n100.

I'DtT,11 ION 11. 1.,1111)121T0121F.:,

To look ahead to 1980 takes courage. especially forcollege administrators. The figures confrontingthem are astounding:

A predicted 50', increase in college stu-dents from 712 million to 11 million.

College enrollment of 41'; of the 18-21 yearolds (compared with 35', in 10701.

An increasing number of students who stayin college for more than four years.

If the expected influx does occur. eery aspect ofcollege life «ill suffer the strain, of overcrowding-- dormitories most of all. .1ssuming that institu-tions will need to provide housing for only half ofthe increased number of students ( because about53'; of all student, attending college Ike in resi-dence halls (, the lig))) es are still sobering: 2 mil-lion new spaces w ill be required in the next decade.

If the problem were simpl one of numbers,the solution would oc one of nmne only. The prob-lem, howe era is not just quantity. At collegesthroughout North America, dormitor rooms standcmpt because students choose 1101 to live in them.No longer content with a roof over their heads.duce square meals a (la\ and a roommate chosen ina computer. student, are asking for dormitories thatare ital phi es to lk e in They %%ant plates thatpros ide for prkacy and intimate sot ialization asw ell as for the various life-style, that characterisecollege-age youth. Students are quick to point outthat use of a double room b two p«(plc for sleep-ing. studying and socializing all quite different uses

of the same room -makes it extremely difficult orimpossible for tither roommate to have free con-trol over hip own space or schedule.

No longer wanting to live in cloistered isola-tion. student.: are clamoring for housing that is

-relevant.- that reflects the concerns. the moresand the tempo of the outside world. "Consideringthe preferences of students for recreation. enter-tainment and political action along with eating andsleeping. the desired pattern of ing suggests thepolyglot excitement of a Latin Quarter. rather thanthe uniform am nine, of the familiar residentialcollege.- This opinion from lionsin(z, by the Stu-dent Community I lousing Corporation at Yale Uni-versit . would find favor on many other campuses.Complaining of the -insularity- of student life, theVale study cm isions a 11111\ cr,it in which there are"no rigid demarcations between the places wherethe members of the unk crsitv work and the placeswhere they live.-

New buildings get more expensive all the time.as construction costs, interest rates and mainte-nance costs soar. So how can a beleaguered admin-istrator build a dormitor that will have the ambi-ance of a Latin Quarter and at the same time beeconomical and functional? Not an easy question.Vet it is a serious question, because the collegelandscape is littered w it h huge, high-rise doi nk thatare partially or even entirely empty. Until fiveyears ago, students were eager to settle for life inthe dorm am dorm. Many grumbled about the

7

restrictions of dormitory livingand the institu-tional food--but few did anything more drasticthan complain and deface the walls. No more. Nowdormitories which are 20', empty are common-pl,,ce. Students are moving off campus. choosing to

y 10gh rents to live in substandard "pads ratherthan submit to the rules and regulations or theubiquitous double bedrooms of dormitory life.

Those who move outand those who stay oncampus because they have nowhere else to go-complain about the lack of privacy, the lack offreedom and the strained relationships with dorm-mates. They resent the uniformity of the dormitorywhich, to them. seems to reflect the university'sattitude about -Ancients in general. they concludethat if all the rooms and all the corridors are alike.university administrators mu, t think all. studentsare alike also. To a generation aching to express itsown identity. this symbolic suggestion of unifor-mity is as offensive as the parietal rules which im-ply that students are untrustworthy and in esponsi-ble. In time:, past. college administrators were notforced to consider the underlying implications of abuilding or a set of rules. Accused of building in-human. monotonous buildings, an administratorhad Only to explain that monotony was cheaper.Such explanations no longer satisfy students whoinsist that the buildings they live in affect the waythey think and feel. It is no longer enough for plan-ners to consider the number of beds per square footin a dormitoly: now they must give equal weight

8

to the quality of life per square foot.At schools where student preferences have

been reflected in the design ( or remodeling ) ofbuildings. the results have been well worth theeffort. At NI it. Cornell and Michigan State the leastpopular dorms on campus have been transformedinto dormitories w ith waiting lists. Other schoolslime encouraged studcuts to aid in the planning ofnew buildings. and the results have been not onlysuccessful but economical. proving that giving stu-dents what the v %rant does not necessarily cost1114)re than gi% ing them w hat the% don't want. Onepart of the problem is that at many schools housingoffic ials stubbornly insist that it is the students, notthe dormitories. that need to change. Where hous-ing officials are willing to listen to students and totreat their needs with sensitivity and respect,dorms are filled and their occupants satisfied.

\ !though the number of disaffect «1 students is«msiderable, it would be a distortion to suggestthat they are in the majority.. 1969 study atMit higan State University indicated that at leastSO', of t he students were satisfied with their on-campus However. since dormi-tories are built with long-term. self-liquidatingloans, the other SO', -those who are less than sat-isfied w ith dorm life- -can add up to financial disas-ter. each empty room increases the budget deficit.

Empty dorms are a loss that cannot be mea-sured solel in dollars and cents. Commuter 01-leges are incapable of generating a sense of unity or

loyalty or belonging. They tend to become coldlyefficient knowledge factories to which student-workers commute each day. The college withempty beds iS poor in more ways than one; studiessuggest that the more innovative, mature and ener-geiic students are the first to leave the campus.

Statistical projections indicate that in tenyears' time, the average age of college students willbe several years older than today. It is safe to pre-dict that thetriditional -caretaker" dorms (thosedorms that separate men from women and haveneither private baths nor kitchens ) will be even lessucce:,sful in meeting the needs of an older studentpopulation.

At large urban universities, dissatisILA dormi-tory residents are discovering that they cannotmove off campus even if they want to. The sheerntfmbers of new students entering each year threat-ens to swamp many university communities. Itcauses students and low-income families to com-pete for the same scarce housing, and that spellstrouble in many areas.

As student populations increase and the sup-ply of off-campus housing decreases, administra-tors will face three choices. They can build newdormitories, remodel existing buildings or get outof the housing business. Since the costs of runningdorms often exceed their income, many collegeswould like to shed the burden of being in the hous-ing business. Increased difficulties may spur someof them to opt out. One subtle way out is for a col-

lege to nominally fulfill its obligation of providinghoiising yet not accommodate any undergraduates.This is done by building apartments for marriedstudents, most of whom are pursuing graduatestudies. There's an additional bonus in this ploy,because by strengthening its graduate program acollege automatically raises its status in the aca-demic world.

Colleges that continue to provide dorms forundergraduate students should learn from recentexperiences and involve students in the design offuture dorms. Before launching any kind of build-ing program. the administrators should collect andassess student opinion about the strengths andweaknesses of existing and planned facilitids. Andbefore planning any kind of residential quarters,the college should discuss with students the pro-posed patterns of responsibility for social conduct,academic counseling, informal student programs,as well as more mundane topics such as cleaningand maintenance.

. Some schools have found it useful to set up apermanent housing board with members drawn,from the student body, the faculty and the admin-istration. Tlie University of Kansas established a

board of this kind in 1963; not only is it respon-sible for recommending and evaluating long-rangeplans. but it also manages, the day-to-day job liai-son between students and housing administrators,thus preventing small problems from growing tocrisis proportions.

9

Since no one knows more about dormitoriesthan the students who live in them, it is reasonableto expect that. in the future. students will play animportant role in influencing the design of newfacilities. Students in 1972 generally agree thatthey cannot run things alone, but that a combina-tion of students. administration and faculty cancreate a responsive guidance for college life. For ex-ample. although student-owned cooperative hous-ing is nominally a student endeavor. it is oftenhelped with adminio native counseling or run by

10

graduate or senior students with experience inhousing programs. Regrettably. in situations wheitthere is no responsive contact between administra-tion and students. possible changes in dorm life areoften lost in the rhetoric of conflict. improvementssuch as coeducational dorms. co-ops. dorm-basedseminars and student government were brought onby student acti ism. but ultimately made to workby university guidance and sponsorship.

Search for IdentityTlw major mark of instituthwal environments isMa: they tire standardized and uniform. The mean-ing of the message is unambiguous: people are 1101

(.001Petent to allect their immediate environmen;;people are not worth murk. t Sim ran der Ryn and.11 urra y Silverstein, Dorms at Berkeley: an environ-mental analysis. )

The large influx of students onto universitycampuses after World War II gave rise to a surfeitof dormitories that are remarkably cold, stark, in-human and monotonous. Inside. long double-loadedcorridors ( reminiscent of the -last mile" are de-signed with slide -rule precision: huge. glassy com-mon rooms furnished with neat rows of chrome andleatherette seats are mute testament to a time whencolleges frowned on intimacy and individuality: Inretrospect. it is easy to understand why. these build-ings and the students they were meant to housewould come into conflict. And. with that same hind-sight. one could say that students learn in the class-room to be dissatisfied with the conformity imposedon them in the dormitory. There is, then, on manycampuses a dichotomy between academic life andthe life in the dorm.

Ilennan P. Miller. former director of the Cen-sus Bureau's population studies. observes, -Weknow from many different studies that college grad-uates hold different values. They tend to be moreliberal politically, more concerned with the society

around them than with their own particular needs.It's entirely possible that some. if not much. of whatwe call the generation gap is related to education.'

Socio;ogist Kenneth Keniston explains it thisway: ''Social conflicts do flow from increased edit-cat ion. A person attached to traditional concepts ac-cepts the idea of law and order, for instance. Thecollege-educated person is more likely to ask. 'Is thelaw a just law?' "

To psychoanalyst Erik II. Erikson establishingan identity is the major crisis of adolescence. -Theadolescent needs to redefinl himself in personal. so-cial and occupational terms after the revolution ofsexual maturation. It is important that he make thisredefinition, or identity. ant to the adult world.This may require the transient assumption of anumber of different and divergent identities beforedeciding which is th'' most appropriate. Some of theidentities will seem inappropriate or disturbing tofamily and friends."

It is this identity crisis that prompts sociolo-gists Christopher Jencks and David Reisman tostate that -one of the functions of the residentialcollege is to emancipate the young from the inevi-table limitations of their home and neighborhood be-fon.. it is too late."

College is no longer a place where the oldergeneration can with solemn ceremony hand its cul-tural values -wrapped as :t gifton to a new gen-eration. Now college is the place where the younggo to seek and experiment with their own identity.

11

their own culture. Dormitories can provide a stagefor these experiments.

The dormitories built in the last fifty yearswere not, however. designed as places of discovery.nor were they designed as laboratories for experi-menting with different life-styles. University admin-istrators have assumed the obligation of providingefficient. compact housing for a maximum numberof students in minimum space. if possible close toclasses. otherwise on available land. They havebuilt indestructible. lexible structures. measuringthe living area in trms of either "be(-z- or"spaces... Physical layout resembles turn-of-the-century prisons. mu. oliths of concrete and brick. A

relentless corridor cuts each floor. sepa:-atingdouble-occupancy room.. Cang baths bedeck eitherend of the corridor. ieint. halls and impersonallounges that look like l.us terminals complete thepicture. If a house mother ant! rules are added. theresult is instant-prison for the hapless student whohas to live there.

If the psychologists and sociologists are correctin their conviction that the search for identity andinformal activity outside the classroom is part Ofthe personal development process and, therefore. animportant aspect of college life. then dormitorieswill have to change. They will have to become con-genial places for students sharing. in various de-grees of intensity and individuality. a process of

learning and growth.

12

Talking with StudentsMany college administrators insist that it is futile :attempt to build dormitories that will satisfy stu-dents because "they don't know what they want" orbecause "no matter how much yon give them. theyalways want something more.- This is a culture gapthat can easily be closed if administrators and lac-.ulty keep in touch with their students.

.- student housing study funded by EiN. andconducted by architecture students at PennsylvaniaState University canvassed the housing situation atcolleges and universities across he country. The re-port (Housing: Issues of Concern to Students. Sa-tional Association of College. and University Resi-

dence Hall. Pennsylvania State University. 19711

demonstrates a consistent pattern of discontent andan equally consistent litany of unmet needs. Two-thirds of the students who had moved off campus be-

cause they found dormitory life oppressive ex-pressed a desire to return to the campus if theywere offered:

1) A variety of living options from which tochoose:

A chance for small groups to establish afeeling of closeness through shared interests:3) Privacy. meaning control over one': envi-

ronment and an absence of rules and regula-tions:4 ) The option of renting rooms without board.

To no one's surprise. the Penn State study in-dicates that there is no ideal dormitory arrangement

guaranteed to please everyone. What students wantk- the chance to choose from a variety of living op-tions: coeducational dorms. apartments. suites. spe-cial interest dorms. dorms with snack bars insteadof dining rooms. Little amenities--private tele-phones and kitcht-net c :meting. small cozy -raprooms... the right to paint rooms and hallwaysgo along way toward dispelling the institutional atmo-sphere that drives students ofi campus.

There is no one kind of student housing. be-cause there is no one kind of student. ReturningVietnam veterans are accustomed to different kindsof living space,' than freshmen who have spent theirfirst 15 yeztrs cosseted in safe suburbs. Since inter-rupting a college education with a few years of ex-perience in the -real- world k becoming ever moreprevalent. housing for married studentswith andwithout childrenmust be provided. Some student,relish the challenge or the savings of cooking andcleaning for themselve,: other:. wantand canaffordthe luxury of full, serviced dorms. Thereare even students who res having anything donefor them: they want to own nor lease I their ownresidences. which is certainly a legitimate learningexperience.

A detailed study (Stmicnt Reportto the Statutory Commission. Madison.11Isconsin.April 1971) enlisted the aid of 20.000 students anda battery of computers in an attempt to determinewhat kind of housing students want at the Univer-sity of IVisconsin. The answer: variety. The fact

that both the Wisconsin study and the Penn Statestudy resulted in similar findings indicates that stu-dents emphatically want a freedom of choice.

Some students want the residence hall to be arelaxing social haven which will provide distractionfrom the rigors of academic life: others wain, to beimmersed in stimulating cultural or intellectual ac-tivities. Each is expressing a deep-felt need. Somestudents want to live in close proximity to only afew of their pe-ers: others want a large and fluctuat-ing social milieu from which to choose. Some wantto live near faculty and families with children.others want to live in a world apart-. Certainly ageinfluences the kind of living arrangements that astudent wants, but the growing trend toward in-terrupted education and more graduate educationmakes the age of the college population quite diffi-cult to predict.

Every study of student opinion conducted inrecent years points to the fact that students want toplay a larger role in shaping and managing their col-lege lives. A majority of studentsparticularly up-perclassmndo not want to be taken care of:-caretaker dorms" are viewed as impediments toautonomy and freedom. Students want to live in sit-uations that they can control and change. Environ-ments that impede this are seen as authoritarian.As such. they inspire apathy. rebellion or rejection.

Coeducational LivingIf there is one thought to be gleaned from the many

13

studies of student opinion. it is thatcollege students

view themselves as men and womennot as teen-

agers or boys and girls. This fact alone has made

the trend toward coeducational living irreversible.The subject of coed living may purse the lips ofPuritans. but it is not the Sodom they may envis-

age. Coed dorms place men and women on alternate

floors or on the same floor. and in some residences

they share bathrooms. :\ further development. co-

habitation. places men and women in closer proxim-

ity than coed dorms. but in 1972 few colleges ac-

knowledged its existence.A Gallup poll in 1971 indicated that -even par-

entsa surprising 46'; are not opposed to having

their daughters live in coed dorms. It would seem

that parentslike college administratorshavecome to accept the fact that the old system of pro-tecting student morality cannot be enforced and is

gross hypocrisy. Students will assert their indepen-dence whether allowed to or not.

At schools where coed living has been tried.

evidence points to a mature atmosphere. less noise,

more intellectual discussions. happier students :au!

fewer empty rooms. That coed living has succeeded

can be amply demonstrated. At Georgetown Univer-

sity. students who objected to the men-only restric-

tion in the dorms were moving to nearby rooming

houses in order to entertain whom and when they

pleased. When Georgetown permitted women visi-

tors in the dorms and relaxed curfews. some of the

first to move off campus were the first to move back.

14

At Princeton University the admission of 178

women to the 3:000-man campus in the fall of 1969

has helped to increase the number and quality ofmale applicants for 1973.

Most major universities now have some resi-

dences that are coeducational. At some schools, the

university administration decides the extent of coed

living allowed: at other schools ( George Washing-

ton University is one ). the students themselves de-

vise the guidelines. Some colleges allow the mem-

bers of each dormitory to vote on a plan of their

own choosing. Vhether by floor, by corridor. bysuite or by room. men and women are living closer

together than ever before. None of the -dire conse-

quences- that many administrators feared have as

yet materialized.Although the Pill and the waning influence of

organized religion have succeeded in abolishing hell

and pregnancy as deterrents to premarital sex. stu-

dents appear not to be compulsive about it. .-\ sage

sophomore at Wilmington College. in Ohio. philos-

ophizes. --When you're given a lot of freedom, you

generally don't take it all.'' Dr. Martha X-erda.counseling psychologist at Oberlin College. feels

that liberalized vkiting regulations have opened up

new opportunities for students to know each other

as human beings. -As community spirit grows.-says Dr. Verda, "students don't have to pair off as

lovers to get to know one another. They form sis-ter-brother relationships and take on large groups

of friends."

Stanford University. San Francisco State. theUniversity of Michigan and City University of NettYork are some of the colleges which offer rooms indormitories to men and %%omen on the same floors.One fraternity at Stanford. Lambda Nu. has gonecoed cc ith both men and women reporting that-coed lit ing is a natural experience and promotesreal understanding between the sexes rather thanthe false impressions that dating caa create."

Some schools have found it beneficial to in-crease their counselor services as a result of thetrend toward more serious male-female relation-ships. Hiring graduate students as counselors andputting their ofil«, in the dorms makes help readilmailable. since admittedly the new togethernesscreates new pressures for some students.

It would be a mistake to assume that turning atraditional dorm into a coed residence solves theproblems created by an outmoded building. Just theopposite: making the standard dorm coed can cre-ate as many problems as it solves. since doublerooms which offer no N isual 1 to sm nothing of audi-tory) privacy. huge common rooms, cavernous (lin-ing rooms which offer no social intimacy and gangbathrooms-are eN en less acceptable in a coed situa-tion than they were before.

What's Become of the Dining Hall?At present. most student:, resent and reject any ac-tivity that requires them to congregate in largegr6ups at specified times. Since freedom and inti-

macy are prized and the mass camaraderie of a pre-vious era is viewed %chit disdain. huge dining hallswhere meals are served promptly at 8:00, 12:00and 6:00 are st [Ming empty and silent at campusesfrom Maine to California. About 96(,-; of thosequestioned in the Penn State study of student opin-ion said they would gladly pay extra for the privi-lege of eating at a snack bar, and an overwhelmingnumber of off-campus dwellers gave compulsoryboard contracts as one of the primary reasons fortheir move.

What students want is a flexible food plan thatoffers them a variety of options from which tochoose. And the< want to be able to eat at any hourof the day or night. The mini-refrigerators for renton many.campuses and small electric stoves facili-tate 24-hour snacking where kitchenettes are notavailable.

As a result of student pressure. many schoolsare offering limited board optionsthat is. thechoice of a contract for 10 or 15 meals per week inplace of full board. Kent State University, cc hichoffers 0. 15 or 19 meals a week. is closing some din-ing halls and extending meal hours at others: lunch.for instance is served from 10:00 until 4:00. KentState's continuous feeding program ( 6:45 A.M. to6:00 P.m.) has reduced the employee payroll by12V( . saving 2:-c150 per day.

Still othefi schools are converting dining hallsinto movie theatres or seminar rooms and offering-room only contracts. At some institutions dining

15

halls have been turned into short-order cafes openlate into the night. At one midwestern university, adining hall becomes a bake shop one day a week.selling doughnuts, cakes and cookies. At WisconsinState University t River Falls f one dormitory base-ment has been converted into a full kitchen whereunlimited cooking is allowed. Students report thatsuch group kitchens are a unifying center of socialactivity in dorms that otherwise are impersonal.

For many students. the ideal situation wouldbe a -.mall kitchen for every six or eight people.Gerald Brock. director of housing at WesternWashington State College. puts it this way: "Even-tually we will have to phase out traditional dormsaltogether. We will make all existing facilities intoapartment-type units with perhaps one or two resi-dence hails for freshmen.'' At Western Washington.the dormitories are 25 empty, but the mobilehomes and two- bedroom apartment units on campusare filled to capacity. Asked for an explanation.Brock says. "Students today want a total absence ofsupervisiononly apartments give them that.'' Thewisdom of Brock's observation is borne out on othercampuses.

At the State University of New York at NewPatti. students lived in suites which did not havekitchens and food contracts were compulsory.When students began to move off campus intoapartments. food contracts were made optional,Now the suites are Idling up. but because only 900of the 2.600 resident,: subscribe to the food service,

16

two dining balls have been closed. However, sincethe suites contain no cooking facilities, students areimprovising with all manner of electric hotplates.frying pans and griddles. Electric circuits are over-loaded and with only bathroom sinks for food prep-aration and washing, sanitation is at a low ebb. Thecollege plans to install self-contained kitchen unitsas soon as possible.

Because dining halls are the most financiallyunrewarding part of the traditional dormitory. ad-ministrators continually search for new alternatives.Some schools are talking about leasing their dininghalls to outside restaurants. The University of Wis-consin's Student Housing offers this intriguing solu-tion: "To what degree is the quality of food a func-tion of the complex labor rules and costs withinwhich a state institution must operate? Would ithelp to lower costs and increase skill level of thelab n- pool to offer a hotel and food managementschool in Madison. using residence hall kitchens forinternships?"

Many private colleges have no intention ofoffering optional board plans, despite student dis-satisfaction. They insist that their cherished com-munal spirit depends in large measure on the factthat students eat together. Harvard, for instance.has changed nothing but its menu, which now offersbasic "health- foods ( whole-grain bread, yogurt,cottage cheese. wheat germ. hard-boiled eggs t alongwith the traditional fare.

Hampshire College, which opened in 1970,

may be the only school in the country where stu-dents rave about the food. All meals are served caf-eteria style: there is a variety of choice and ampleopportunity to make the concoction of your choice.

)so that students, feel they are making their ownmeals without having. to bother about marketing or.cooking. The college claims that offering choices ac-tually saves money. since there is less waste. Mealsare served for two-hour periods: for snacking thereare kitchenettes on every floor. Huge freezersstocked with ice cream are open at meal times,cones are available. and there is no limit on howmuch ice cream ( or any other food) you can eat.

Off-Campus BluesAl' across the country, students who have moved offcampus into inner-city apartments report that theyhave succeeded only in exchanging one unsatisfac-tory situation for another. They complain about thetime and cost of transportation. a feeling of isola-tion ("we're not part of the city or the campus" ).legal difficulties with landlords, twelve-month rentsfor nine months of occupancy. run-down buildings,crime. roommates who default' on the rent and, ofcourse, high rents ( rent strikes have occurred insome cities). A recent University of Michigan sur-vey indicates that rents in Ann Arbor are three tofour times higher than rents in Detroit for compa-rable apartments. Off-campus students complain,too. about police raids. Said one senior, In the

dorm at least I can smoke pot and not worry aboutgetting busted.-

If present economic trends continue, studentsmay be forced to live oil campus whether they wantto or not. Although many school administrat pri-vately profess a desire to "get ,out of the hotel busi-ness," it is doubtful whether they can realize theirwish, since private developers no longer view thestudent market with eager optimism: officials at theU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment report that some private builders are gettingout of the dorm business as quickly as they got in.because commercial building and non- college hous-ing are more profitable.

The Uncertain FutureDespite the back-to-campus trend at some schools,a few institutions have decided to curtail all futurebuilding plans. Wary of investing any more capitalin dormitories that students may find unacceptable.the 27-campus State University of New York can-celed plans for $400 million of residence hall con-struction. Reasons for the decision were not onlystudent preference for off-campus living. but alsorising construction and maintenance costs and astate fiscal crisis. Northern Illinois University andthe University of Massachusetts have also curtailedfuture building plans: other schools are discussingsimilar action.

Schools where enrollment is increasing or atleast stable may stave off disaster by abandoning

17

plans for additional dormitories. But more drastic

measures are needed at schools that optimisticallyexpanded during the post-war college boom and

now are suffering a sharp drop in enrollment. AtSeattle University, for instance. the rising cost ofprivate 'education plus the trend to off-campus liv-

ing has emptied several dorms. By closing onedorm. converting another into faculty offices and

changing the largest hall to a coeducational resi-

dence. the university will avert financial disaster.The University of Oklahoma also suffered the

pangs of over-building, and as' a result a twelve-story dormitory stood empty. When the Post OfficeDepartment offered to lease seven of the twelvefloors for n training facility, the university ac-cepted. The Post Office is paying for the renovation

and will pay for reconverting the facility into living

quarters whenever its lease is not renewed. The ad-ministration has stated its preference for conversion

to apartments when the time comes.Some schools have responded to the off-campus

trend and a drop in enrollment by requiring stu-dents to live in dormitories as a condition of enroll-

ment. Confident that the courts would find compul-

sory on-campus living unconstitutional, studentgroups were inn hilly unconcerned about this in-fringement of their right to choose. Alarm replaced

apathy. however, in 1971. when the U.S. Supreme

Court t in Pratz v. Louisiana Polytechnic Institute)affirmed the decision of a lower Louisiana court.which held that a rule requiring students to live in

18

dormitories was constitutional. In this landmark

case. the defendants contended that dormitory liv-ing adds "an important enrichment to college and

university life and as a living and learning concept

is important and integral to the interpretation ofhigher education.- The College Law Bulletin of the

National Student Association contends that "what

remains to be seen is whether required dormitoryliving will be upheld where the issue at trial is theexistence, in fact, of an 'educational experience' in

the dormitories." In !'ratty v. Louisiana Polytechnic-

Institute, the Court granted schools the right to re-quire on-campus living for educational reasons, but

not for financial. reasons. Vet some schools (Wis-consin State University is one) are raising a newconstitutional issue by honestly admitting that theirresidence requirement is a direct response to a bud-

get deficit. The University of Iowa. which had 1.000

empty rooms and a $4 million deficit in 1970. ismustering both arguments: students are required to

live in residence halls 1) because of the "additionalenrichment afforded'' and 2) "to insure the integ-

rity of revenue bonds.- Although Louisiana Poly-

tech emphatically denies that their residence re-quirement is simply a response to financial straits.

many students remain unconvinced.There can be no doubt that requiring students

to live in dormitories fosters bitterness. At the I-ni-

versity of Iowa. the Associated Resit' .ice Halls is-

sued this statement : "To institute required living inresidence halls will be viewed by students as a puni-

tive measure, done only with the interest of thefinancial bondholders in mind. If the residence killsare given an image by the regents as being so unde-sirable to live in that students must be forced to livein them, the halls will, indeed be in much moretrouble than they apparently are now."

Students complain that being compelled to livein dorms is as archaic as being compelled to attendclass; it gives college the atmosphere of a prison.Feeling they are being made to suffer for adminis-trators' mistakes ( i.e.. over-building), students re-sent being deprived of their freedom of choice, nomatter bow noble the explanation offered by the col-lege.

Students are not alone in their-conviction thatforced on-campus living is a grave mistake. In theopinion of Donald R. Moore. former president ofthe National Association of College and UniversityResidence Halls ( and in 1972 director of housing atTulane University ). -All you're doing is solving oneproblem and creating another. You can make peoplelive in dorms. but you can't make them like it. Thediscontent will create disciplinary problems and themalcontents can be counted on to do expensivedamage to the buildings they don't want to live in."Moore believes strongly that it is his job to createdorms that students will want to live in.

Freedom from PaternalismWhether or not the Supreme Court's decision is le-gally correct seems almost beside the point; it may

be good law: but it is bad human relations, since itattempts to oppose the ineluctable expansion of stu-dent freedom and responsibility. Despite the Su-preme Court decision in Prati v_ Louisiana Poly-technic Institute, a majority of schools are abolish-ing rules and regulations. The American CivilLiberties Union, which questioned 155 college presi-dents in 1970, reports a steady extension" of stu-dents' civil liberties and a corresponding decline inthe practice of in loco parentis.

TheAci.t* survey indicates that student poweris increasing in three significant ways:

1) Students are playing a larger role in collegegovernment:2) Their constitutional rights are treated withgreater solicitude;3 They are freer to arrange their personallives without university interference.In reply to ACLU" questions pertaining to stu-

dent participation in college government. 49e,4 ofthe presidents said that students were voting mem-bers of committees that establish course require-ments. and 24<,-; said students participated withoutvoting rights. Also. 59',,; reported student votingprivileges in curriculum offerings, and 25(j reportedparticipation without voting rights. In the area ofpersonal rights, 71(/'1( reported that students have"primary responsibility" for their personal lives. in-cluding dormitory living.

Another survey, conducted by College Man-agement magazine, reinforces these findings. Five

19

hundre_d university deans were asked a series ofquestions relating to student self-government. Theopinions expressed were 'reaffirmed in a follow-upstudy reported 12 months later. in the August 1970issue. The deans stated that :

1) Students should be voting members of thecollege committees governing areas other thanextra-curricular and social life.2) Student participation in college governanceis now too low.3 ) Administrators encourageand the facultydiscouragesstudent participation in univer-sity governance.4) Student participation in university gover-nance is growing: is desirable and will getstronger in the next few years.

Student ActivistsIt is no longer exceptional for students to play ac-tivenot just perfunctoryroles as members Ofboards of regents. academic and dormitory councils,presidential search committees and curriculum com-mittees. Those students who only a few years ago

20

were storming the barricades in hopes of changingthe world are now working quietly and effectively"within the system" to change the university.

If student enterprise is to thrive. it needs to beencouraged and nurtured by the university: whensuch encouragement has been forthcoming. the re-sults have been heartening. Student-run bookstores. furniture exchanges, cooperative housing.food cooperatives. legal services, social and psycho-logical counseling centers. health clinics, lecture andfilm series, day care centers, vegetarian kitchens,radio and television stations abound on some cam-puses'. Many of these activities are housed in former( unused ) dormitory living rooms and study roonis.When these activities are housed in the residencehalls, the dorm acquires a new vitality: learning isnot something that happens only in the classroombut can become part of dormitory life. too. Sincemany of these student-run projects express concernfor and otter services to townspeople. students are

able to become involved in the "real" concerns ofthe city without moving off campus.

Buildings are not immutable: they just look .thatwith wit, imagination and not too

much money. a huge brick and glass cenotaph canbe transformed into a humane living placea home.Where dormitories have been remodeled so thatthere is a rapport between the physical structure ofthe building and the life-style of the students who

inside..empty rooms are suddenly no longerempty. And there are other bonuses as well: seniorsare eager to move back on campus. and the mantondestruction of university property becomes as ex-tinct as last year's slang.

If the transformation of a dormitory is to bereally successful. much more than just the structureof the building must be transformed, Change's musttake place in the thoughts and minds of universi vadministrators. so that a dormitory which .once m.asonly a collection of rooms in which 400 people livedcan become a community of people who live to-gether and care about each other. In a leaflet de-scribing its residence halls, the dean of housing atOberlin College says. -A group living together canbecome a community where individuals developtheir intellectual as well as social, interpersonalskills:, where their guiding values mature and where.they become more knowledgeable about themselvesbecause of their associations with one another andas a result of the activities of the house.''

The College Housing Branch of the U.S. De-partment of Housing and Urban Development

urn) sees the remodeling of existing dormitories

as the big challenge for the next decade. Becausethere has been a great deal of talk about renovationbut very little action, the department suggests col-leges should make renovations extensive enough tocreate significant changes in living patterns but sug-gests they not be so extensive that the bonded in-debtedness becomes unwieldy.

Most dormitories carry an existing debt of$2.000 to $5,000 per student. According to tit:1), itis economically safe for a university to increase thisindebtedness to between $7.000 and $8.000 tofinance renovations if necessary. Although there areno studies that "prove- that renovation "pays off"in increased rent revenues, nun feels certain thatthere is considerable non-numerical evidence indi-cating that renovation of unpopular dormitories is aworthwhile investmentfrom both a financial andeducational standpoint.

A university that embarks on a program ofdormitory renovation should not make the mistakeof renovating all buildings in toe same manner.When more than one structuit rehabilitated.there is an opportunity to cre,;:c, a hoice, not onlyin life style, but in in-ice. One dorm might offer lux-ury apartments t with private phones. maid andlinen service ): another. a Spartan existence at abargain price: and still another, a student-run coop-erative. What follows k a random sampling of someof the successful renovationsboth to the buildingsthemselves and the ways they are u,eilthat havebeen tried at campuses around the country.

21

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyThe East Campuic-Dorm at at IT was "not a happyplace to Lye," according to Lawrence Ilisholi. as-sistant to the vice-president of operations. Studentsinvaeably rated it the least desirable place on cam-pus because of its dark 300-ft-long corridors linedwith cell-like rooms! It looked like a barracks: thedorm offered no attractive place for a student tomeet friends." l3ishoff says. Since East Dorm wasnot scheduled for complete remodeling until 197S.housing officials decided to do something quicklyand expediently to make the building habitable.rather than say. helplessly, ''Our hands are tied.-

ma officials responded to the students' need toparticipate in structuring their environment by al-lowing the students themselves, rather than housingofficials or architects. to design the renovations. Thearchitect in charge of the project. Harry Ellen-weig, was wholly in sympathy with xi rr's decision.''When I reiiiodel a dormitory. I insist on workingwith the tenants; otherwise. I know the project willfail. Architects can't pretend to be students." Capi-talizing on the cry for -participatory democracy ".Ellenzweig had each floor elect a delegate; togetherthey formed a "client team" which consulted regu-larly with him and officials from the housing office."It was a democratic process. The taste of theclients prevailedunless they chose something thatwas a great waste of money. Good design is not thewhole answer," Ellenzweig explains. Every change

decided upon by the client team was discussed and

approved by the dormitory as a whole.New lighting fixtures to brighten the hallways

and make the ceilings appear lower were the firstchanges; next, floors were carpeted and the stair-wells painted in stripes of bright primary colors.Since student ingenuity had already worked mira-cles in giving the essentially monotonous bedroomsenormous flair. character and individuality. it wasdecided to concentrate resources on changing thoseparts of the building which no individual could

alter. On each floor. one double room was turnedinto a small lounge suitable for 20 to 25 students.The wall separating the former bedroom from thecorridor was removed. With the addition of softlighting, comfortable furniture and a blackboard.these lounges have become popular meeting places.

The fixtures and furniture were all selected by thestudents; none of it has the "hospital waiting roomlook" so often found in college dorms.

Bishoff is enthusiastic about the results. EastDorm has changed more than just its appearance."The impact, on the community was beyond our ex-pectations and somewhat extraordinary. Small andlarge group activity seenml to climb. the house's de-sirability as indicated by freshmen living prefer-ences increased from last to first on campus,: andseveral old customs which some felt undesirablesuch as 'destruction ,day'disappeared." Reportsindicate that for the first time there is a close work-ing relationship between faculty and students in EastDorm. (One outgrowth of this rapport has been a

successful student-sponsored seminar series.)Bishoff attributes this new sense of commitment tothe client team, which forced students to care abouttheir dormitory. -People kept asking me why I wasspending money on corridors: I think it was wellworth it,- he says. The price ( in 1969): $400,000,or $500 per student.

Pleased with the transformation of East Cam-pus Dorm. MIT officials decided to apply the sameprinciple to Burton-Conner House. a badly over-croweded dorm housing 500 students, which Bishoffcalled -our local slum." Since Burton-Conner wasbuilt in 1925 as an apartment hotel and convertedto a dormitory in 1950, it was largely capital-free.The proposed changes. then, could be quite exten-sive without incurring an enormous debt.

Before opting to rehabilitate the facility. stud-ies were made to determine whether it wouldn't bemore economical to tear the building down and startanew. But the study found that, because the basicstructure was still sound. costs could be cut by 50(Aif the outer shell as well as the corridor, stairwelland elevator pattern were left intact. Nothing else.however, was salvaged. In Bishoff's words, "we torethe guts out of it." The cost was $3,.5 million (about$10.000 per student. since occupancy was reducedto 350 students).

Architects drew up a preliminary plan for anapartment dormitory complete with private kitch-ens and bathrooms, since students at MIT, like stu-dents all over the country, prefer apartment living

to every other arrangement. The preliminary plans,however, were worked aver and changed by theclient team of students that met once every threeweeks with architects and housing officials, The stu-dents argued against making all the apartmentsalike; their preference resulted in a melange ofapartments which can house a range of three to nineoccupants. Student opinion is reflected, too, in theratio of single rooms to doubles; two-thirds of thebedrooms are singles, one-third are double;. Theclient team had a significant impact in encouragingthe architect to create a structure that accommo-dates a variety of tastes and life-styles.

Next door to Burton-Conner is a totally newapartment dorm. A cool, rational symmetry per-vades this building which. though offering all man-ner of creature comforts. does not have the livelyarchitectural vitality of Burton-Conner. Having toconform to the basic constraints of the existingbuilding created a bewildering diversity of spaces inthe older dorm which gives it a kind of charm thatthe new dorm lacks. For this reason, renovating anold structure can have decided advantages whicharc not always apparent when, one is decidingwhether to renovate or raze.

University of KansasMcCollum Hall at the University of Kansas is an-other "institutional'' dorm that does not suffer avacancy problem. A high-rise, three-wing building.McCollum houses 1.000 students in double rooms

23

along double-loaded corridors. Despite its magni,tulle and monotony. students contend that Mc-Collum is a congenial place to live. Again, it is thepublic rooms that tell the story. The large loungejust escapes looking formidable. A piano and inti-mate seating groups are partially responsible. Help-ful, too, are soft chairs and couches strewn withmagazines ( the absence of maidsis an asset. sincestudents find the disarray- -wrn and inviting").Beyond the entryway stands a bank of vending ma-chines which, if not elegant, are certainly practical:small tables and TV are nearby. so that snacking,card playing and watching TV can go on all night.

McCollum's ground door library is glass-enclosed so those inside can see out. those outsidecan see in. Pilled books and a widerange of magazines (everything from Playboy toCommentary). the library's collection is purchasedwith vending machine profits. The same profits alsohelp pay for the records and hi-fi equipment in themusic room. The dining room can be adapted to avariety of purposesprivate dinner parties. smallmeetings. a poolroomby rearranging the movablepallets, Several years ago. maid and janitor servicewas curtailed :_ with the money that was saved, Mc-Collum's corridors were carpeted and private tele-phones installed.

The East Campus Dorm at Air!. and McCollumflail have more in common than their revitalizedcommon rooms: both arc coeducational, and bothallow students to paint and decorate their own

24

rooms. The student opinion study sponsored by EFLindicates that where students are permitted to usepaint, silver foil, colored lights, supergraphics and,culpture made from -found objects" (styrofoam

cups, tin cans, engine parts), they are able to im-pose a personal identity, to create a private lairwithin the confines of an institutional building. Atmrr, students paint the corridors as well as theirrooms: at Western Washington State student mu-rals vibrate hi the lounges. In this way, studentsfeel they have eontrol over t kir environment:,"Control" is a key word in the student lexicon: un-derstanding its importance is a requisite for under-standing student discontent. Paint and a brush canenable a student to make at least one small part.of a

university into his own private turf.Students at Kansas University, like students

everywhere. equate built-in furniture with built-infrustration. Not only do they want to choose thecolors of their wails, they also want to choose theirfurniture anil move it about at will. The Penn Statestudy also indicates that students turn thumbsdown on immobile furnishings. in fact, administra-tors are the only ones who have any kind words forbuilt-in furniture. for the simple reason that it is afinancial boon. Since it can be constructed as an in-tegral part of the building. it can be financed at theoriginal cost of the low-interest government loan,But these same officials are learning that if stu-dents resent built-in furniture, they will expresstheir resentment by damaging it it is chVaperand

wiserin the long run, then, to provide movablebeds, chairs and desks. Because built-in furniture isdifficult and costly) to uproot. its marred and un-pleasant remains are often visible long after theyshould have been replaced.

At Kansas, housing officials try to include asMany "outside" freedoms as possible in dorm life.Since painting walls and moving furniture at willare two of the chokes available off campus. it is feltthey should be available on campus as well.

Mankato Stale CollegeAt Mankato State College, in 'Minnesota. whereonly freshmen are required to live on campus.empty dormitory rooms were the inspiration for aningenious idea. Since students wanted bedroom-living room suites rather than double rooms. a planwas devised for putting doors between three adjoin-ing doubles and closing off all but one doorway tothe corridor. Cost estimates were no higher thanthey would have been had the old-style roomsmerely been extensively remodeled.

Two floors of Searing Center, a 20-year-oldresidence hall were chosen for the experiment. Inaddition to the new doorways. soundproofing wasinstalled between the rooms. and walls were paneledto further muffle noise. The cost of putting in pri-vate bathrooms was prohibitive, so the gang bathsremain. However, having gained a great deal moreprivacy and spaciousness than they had before. stu-dents are delighted with the new arrangement.

The suites and corridor, are carpeted. but thecollege supplies only a minimum of furniture, bedsand storage units. The suites allow the students toarrange their space in many ways; three can sleepin one room, giving the fourth person a single, or. toreduce occupancy cost, six can live in the suite.Tenants may paint the apartments in colors of theirown choosing via) university-supplied paint. Byadding doorways and soundproofing. Mankato Statehas given students what they want: flexibility to ar-range their life-style in a variety of ways.

University of MassachusettsThe Southwest Residential College at the Amherstcampus of the University of Massachusetts was, inthe words of a former student, "a rotten place tolive.- The sixteen dorms (eleven are five storieshigh, five are twenty-two stories high) are builtwith serrated rows of double rooms along straightcorridors. Finding the atmosphere cold and institu-tional. students were moving into their own apart-ments in town. As more students moved out of thedorm. the atmosphere deteriorated and the budgetdeficit grew. In 1970 the university decided to takedrastic measures. With a grant from EEL to provideconsultant assistance, housing officials began to lookfor ways to renovate the 5,400-student complex.Their goal was to change not only the physical plantbut also the attitude of students and their behaviortoward their dormitory.

Not .:urprisingly, funds were limited. Instead

25

of taking money from general university funds, itwas decided to return a small part of the rentmoney paid by each student to the dormitory to im-plement changes; in this way students would feelthat their money was being used to improve theirdormitory. Each year, the equivalent of rent feesfrom 200 students will be spent on the renovationprogram. which is a continuing process.

Student contribution to the changes is not lim-ited to money. Each corridor of students is free todecide on the kind of renovations_they want tomake. Once the student-proposed changes havebeen approved by the proper committees, the stu-dents themselves assist the union laborers with theactual construction work.

On many floors, students have helped toremove walls between double rooms to make suites.On three floors, the wall between a double room anda central lounge has been removed, making an arealarge enough for a snack bar. With hot plates andother cooking equipment, students can prepare theirown snacks and light meals. These kitchenettes arestudent-manned and managed; health and safetyregulations are strictly enforced. For Imre seriouseating, a dining commons is also available on an op-tional basis.

By embarking on only a few changes at a time,the college has been able to demonstrate to thebondholders that they are not damaging the plant.orreducing potential revenue. All the changes can bereversed, if necessary.

26

John Hunt. master of Southwest ResidentialCollege, reports that student enthusiasm is high.

For the first time. they are beginning to react tothe environment, to think about it. to care about it;Our basic philosophy.- Hunt explains -is to give asmuch responsibility to the students as possible.-The students are free to decide whether their livingunit will be coed or not; they are free to paint mu-rals or bright primary colors on walls and doors inlounges and corridors. In their own rooms theyhave total latitude, even to the extent of makingchanges which involve plastering and rewiring. Inone dorm, students elected to turn a large loungeinto a gymnasiuni: in another. the lounge is beingdivided into small study rooms.

Student responsibility extends beyond thephysical plant to the actual administration of thedorms. In some units of the residential complex, themoney that is usually allocated to pay the salariesof eight professional dormitory staff members ispaid. instead, to student staff members who performthe same functions.

For many- years. the large lounges in theSouthwest residence halls have been used as class-rooms for 200 sections of courses in the regular cur-riculum. Now 65 colloquiashort concentratedcourses suggested and designed by studentsarealso given in the residence halls, adding anotherkind of vitality to the environment.

All of this activity has drastically improved theatmosphere in the dorm, but, ironically, the greater

latitude has given rise to increased aspirations formore student control over academic life. Hunt is notalarmed by this contentiousness. "I feel itshealthy," he says. "It shows they caret before. theywere silent but sullen."

The American UniversityWhen The American University in Washington.

n out of money several years ..go and wasunable to finish the top floor of one of the school'snewer dormitories. no one guessed that the misfor-tune was a blessing in disguise. Anderson Hall is inevery respect a conventional high-rise dorm; realiz-ing that students were no longer happy living indouble rooms lining strai;_nt corridors, the univer-sity decided to find out how students did want tolive before completing the top floor. -With a grantfrom EFI.. the university hired a design consultantto survey student needs and attitudes and to devisean interior that would as nearly as possibleconform to these needs. "As nearly as possible" isan important phrase. because, of course, the build-ing itself imposed severe constraints on what couldbe done. Since plumbing t necessitating gang bath-rooms) and electrical outlets were already in thebuilding shell, they could not be changed. Perma-nent, too. were the fixed building supports on thefloor. Faced with these limitations, Erma Striner.the design consultant. sent out a questionnaire tothe entire student body.

From the questionnaires, as well as from sub-

sequent personal interviews, she learned that,ideally, students want apartments. Since privatebathrooms and kitchens were out of the question.she designed instead clusters of living roombed-room suites in a variety of sizes. BecauSe studentssaid they wanted privacy, but also a "sense of com-munity" with a smallbut not too smallgroup oftheir peers, each cluster is designed for about 50occupants. Thus, the three clusters on the coedu-cational floor will house 148 students as well as 2staff members.

Since the questionnaires revealed, too,that stu-dents want to cook their own meals, the suites aregrouped around lounge areas, which provide cook-ing facilities as well as a quiet zone for study. Someof the original corridor space has been incorporatedinto suites so that now the rooms are no longer linedup in straight rows.

Suites vary in size and shape. and their individ-uality will be further enhanced by a variety of kindsof furniture from which to choose. Students askedthat all furniture be movableeven closets whichcan serve as room dividers. Bunk, studio and trun-dle beds will be available, in addition to severalkinds of chairs, tables and lamps. In this way thecomponents can be mixed differently in every suite.

Oberlin College"There is an assumption which should be ques-tionedthat students merely sleep in their rooms.They do more: they live in their rooms." This as-

27

sertion, by the Research and Design Institute ofProvidence, R.I.. in the 1971 Brown UniversityStudent Housing Report, meets with approval atseveral colleges.

Oberlin College found that when it convertedsingle-sex dorms to coeducational living, creating asocial space, a "neutral territory" much like the liv-ing room in a home, was essential. In Barrows Hall,a traditional dormitory built in' the 1950's, fourdouble rooms-were taken out of circulation in thecenter of each corridor and converted into fourareas suitable for studying, lounging, cooking, lis-tening to music, talking, meeting a friend, puttingup an overnight guest. holding a seminar or an im-promptu party or an art exhibit, or as a place of ref-uge from ones roommate. Since all coed dorms atOberlin have non-student adults in residence, addi-tional space on the ground floor was converted intoapartments. Students especially enjoy having chil-dren living in the same building with them. "Havingkids around makes college seem more like the realworld," one senior explained.

Although Oberlin's renovation scheme resultedin the loss of a significant number of sleepingspaces, the college is not experiencing a shortage ofrooms; fortunately the renovation coincided withthe off-campus living trend. However, housing au-thorities believe, that the conversion to coed livinghas stemmed the off-campus tide, and indicationsare that a greater proportion of seniors are electingto stay in the residence halls. Although the requests

28

for single rooms far outnumber those available, stu-dents report that the new lounges offer some degreeof privacy even for those who must live two-to-a-room.

Alternate-door coeducational living is beingtried at Oberlin as a limited experiment. Interest-ingly, not a large number of students chose thisplan; far more requested alternate-floor coed living.Having men and women on separate floors sim-plifies bathroom use ( in dorms with gang baths).

'find it also offers imotheiunexpectedbenefit. AtAntioch College, in Yellow Springs, Ohio, womenreport feeling "safer" if men occupy the groundfloor; turning the first floor over to men has reducedthe number of thefts and intruders at Antioch.

Florida State UniversityStudents who lived in Smith Hall at Florida StateUniversity. in Tallahassee, made no secret of whatthey thought of their dormitory. They sent delega-tions and petitions to the president of the univer-sity, held rallies in the dorm to proclaim their feel-ing that they were living in a prison, not a dorm.Feelings of frustration were also expressed in will-ful destruction to the building. Realizing that thedorm had to be drastically renovated or torn clown.the university opted for the former; since the build-ing, completed in 1952, was basically sound.

Typical of its era, Smith is a ten-story buildingwhich has small double rooms lining long corridors.With a $3,350,000 loan from II un. Smith will create

apartments by converting two double bedrooms intoliving and dining rooms with compact kitchens, andadding bathrooms and single bedrooms in modularunits that Neill be attached to the outside of the orig-inal structure.

Bowie State College"There is only one word to describe old TubmanHallit was a dungeon." William Mumby,tart to the president' of Bowie State College, be-lieves that the deplorable conditions in the women'sdormitory were a major factor in the riot staged by600 students at the Maryland college in 1968. Theprotest, which closed the school temporarily, wasquelled with the help of state troopers, but not be-fore the students won a promise for improvementsin Tubman Hall.

Tubman Hall was 50 years old at the time ofthe demonstration. According to, Anthony Johns,Jr., the architect who drew up the renovation plans."the conditions in the old building were inhuman:they never4ould have been tolerated at a white col-lege."Johns reports that the number of bathroomswas insufficient and those that existed afforded noprivacy; a faulty heating system made some roomsfreezing, others unbearably hot -: there were -hugecracks in the dingy plaster and bedrooms weresmall and over - crowded.

Johns, who teaches at Howard University, cred-its the state authorities with forthright determina-tion to improve Tubman Hall. After he prepared

plans for renovating the building, the necessary$535,000 was quickly appropriated. The Board ofTrustees of Maryland's state colleges and BowieState officials jointly approved the plans. The Boardfinanced the dormitory through a state bond issue.so the college bears no financial responsibility forthe renovation.

The original_ dormitory was gutted; only theroof the bearing walls and the stairwell were leftintact. The double-loaded corridors were replacedwith living clusters. Each group of eight doublerooms has its own entry off the central stairs, abathroom, a study room which is wired for closedcircuit television, and a living room. Tie small liv-ing groups foster closeness, yet they are not isolatedfrom the dorm as a whole.

Tubman Hall boasts a beauty parlor and a rec-reation room for dances_ and social gatherings.Bowie officials report that the students are thrilledwith the new residence, despite the fact that risingbuilding costs made it necessary to dispense withairconditioning and a P.A. system. Johns feels, how-ever, that the enthusiastic student reaction is morea reflection of the generally inadequate dormitoriesat black colleges than it is an accurate reflection ofthe building's merits.

Michigan State UniversityLarge schools need to create a greater variety of liv-ing choices than do small schools, since they attracta greater variety of students. Even though most stu-

29

dents seem to want apartments, some especiallyfreshmenare unprepared for total independence:for this reason it would be a mistake to convert alltraditional dorms into'suites; Fee Hall at MichiganState, in East Lansing, was converted to apart-ments, and its once:empty rooms are all Gccupied,but Williams Hall was merely given a face-lift.Rooms were refurnished. corridors and studentrooms were carpeted, refrigerators were installedand small doubles were converted to singles. Theprevious 10(-"c' vacancy immediately reversed tototal occupancy with a waiting list.

Georgetown UniversityGeorgetown University, in Washington, 1).C..thought of itself as a nonresidential college until themid-sixties when the changing character of the cityand the student body forced a reassessment. Ratherthan build new dormitories, the university turnedover 22 town housespreviously rented out as in-come property to non-college tenantsto students.The town houses are small: no more than five stu-

. dents live in each. They live totally without supervi-sion or curfews and a board plan-is optional.

30

A housing official who visits the town housestwice a month reports that the students are happy.the houses are clean and (most important) none ofthe predicted clashes between students and the sur-rounding neighbors have materialized. Housingofficials- were concerned, however, that town houseresidents were not eating properly. To remedy thisthey produced an' easy, economical, gourmet" cook-book: the first edition is completely sold out and asecond edition is planned. Georgetown owns 32other town houses which will gradually be turnedover to students; in one year there have been 600requests for the 100 available town house spaces.

Another inner-city school, the University ofChiCago, has bought decaying brownstones andboarding houses near the campus and transformedthem into apartment dormitories where studentsand faculty can live together. By renovating tene-ments near the campus. the university has not onlysaved money, it has also saved the neighborhood.Other schoolsNew York University and GeorgeWashington Universityhave bought old hotelsnear the campus and are using them as dorms.

11

At many colleges and universities, Unused, under-used or unloved dorms are being turned intocenters of academic and cultural ferment. Theidea is to offer,students more for their money thanjust room and board.: clearly it an idea whosetime has come again.

The old fraternity houses brought togetherlike-minded people who shared common views andvalues. Living-learning residences serve somewhatthe same function. and. in addition. they creativelylink academic life with leisure time. Instead ofmerely being a place to cat and sleep. the (lorm be-comes a haven for pursuing serious or creative in-terests free from the structured format of the class-room. Such dorms typically seethe with stimulatingactivity: earnest discussion takes the place of smalltalk; string quartets and film festivals. the place ofpoker. Serious students with left-over energy toburn and enthusiasm to explore find a welcomeniche in this kind of dorm: the frivolous studentneed not apply.

Housing officials are beginning to realize thatliving-learning dorms and other special interestresidences, such as black 'dorms and foreign lan-guage dorms, tend to distract from the inadequaciesof the physical plant. To put it another way, stu-dents are willing to tolerate more architecturalinadequacies if the (lorm offers them other compen-sations. Transforming a traditional dorm into a liv-ing-learning (lorm may involve fewer changes in theactual blueprint of the building, but many more

changes in the ways the building is used. Thiskindof renovation demands as muchif not moreeffort on the part of housing officials as do structural renovations, but is effort spent in a differentdirection.

The living-learning dorms described below arehoused in residence halls that had lost favor withstudents and were badly in need of some kind of re-juvenation.

University of DenverThe situation at Denver's Johnson McFarlane Hallwas not unusual: students expres,sed.theii dislike ofthe large and unimaginatively designed dorm bymoving out. Denver's solution to this typical di-lemma, however, is not usual: it is imaginative. al-most daring. Best of all. it is succeeding.

Since 1968. when on-campus living became op-tional rather than required), the number of emptybeds in Denver's dormitories had increased steadily.In 1971, however, the trend seemed to reverse. Uni-versity officials attribute the change to increasedrents oft campus. more liberal parietal rules on cam-pus and two new living-learning dormitories.

Johnson McFarlane's "special interest" is em-pirical science. Although the atmosphere in thedorm has improved drastically, none of the livingquarters has been remodeled: double rooms stillline double-loaded corridors. What has changed arethe common rooms, which are now filled with elec-tronic equipment, much of it borrowed from other

31

campus departments. A computer terminal, key-punch electronic calculators, photography and vid-eotape equipment are an important part of dailylife at Johnson McFarlane, which has ceased to be"just a place to sleep" and has become, instead, aresource center.

To help each other use the electronic equip-ment, students living in the dorm give noncreditcourses in computer programming. Consequently.the computer is in use 12 hours a day. In addition, aseries of atypical seminars is taught in the dorm.Students do not passively listen to an "authorityfigure "; they participate by lecturing, discussingand demonstrating theories of -their own. Usingsuch methods as game theory and simulation, stu-dents put their computerand their knowledge towork.

Sharing the computer, as well as a commonsphere of interest, has given rise to a new closenessin the dorm. The bull session has been reborn; stu-dents help and care about each other. An unex-pected dividend ( but one which the administrationhopes will grow) is the increase in the number ofupperclassmen in the dorm.

Having created a dorm for the empirical scien-tists, Denver turned its attention to the artisticallyinclined. "We are expanding the living-learning pro-grams," Walter B. Shaw, dean of housing programs.explains, "because we are convinced that learning inthe residence halls can enhance learning in theclassrooms. Learning should not end when classes

32

are over." In addition to the advantages of 24-hourlearning, Shaw believes that special interest dormsallow students to plan and shape their own educa-tion so learning becomes a participatory process.

Centennial Towers was chosen as the new artsdormitory, largely because it was the least populardormitory on campus. With a -grant from EFL, adorm was planned focusing on the -symbolic disci-plines"art, music, theatre. communications andthe humanities. Three resource centers provide a

.small theatre, a darkroom, motion picture equip-ment, a videotape system, a four-channel sound sys-tem, a closed-circuit radio station, dance and paint-ing studios, and a library of 2,000 books. Noncreditlearning experiences are made available in thedorm by graduate students who are given a tui-tion waiver and a stipend. When students put on aplay or a film series, both are usually sellouts.

The university reports a welcomed new espritin the dorm because students no longer feel ex-ploited. "We're giving them their money's worth,Shaw says. 11( contends that it is wrong for univer-sities to compete with the off-campus housing mar-ket by attempting to offer similar luxuries. "Wehave something unique to offeran educational en-vironmentand we should stick to that."

Denver's two special interest dorms are de-signed for the serious student. Admittedly, there area considerable number of students whose interestsare less focused. less intense. Michigan State Uni-versity has created a program in Butterfield Hall

for the "typical student, as opposed to the superiorstudent." Activities include first aid, bridge. weightwatching. self-defense. art and swimming. Partici-pation and enthusiasm are high.

Cornell UniversityThe gothic buildings that litter older campusesthroughout the country are usually the first to meetthe wrecking ball, since their irregular nooks andcrannies are said to create maintenance problems. Itis precisely the old-fashioned quality of this kind ofbuilding, however, which endears it to students, wholove its oddly shaped rooms, high ceilings, turretsand towers, just because they are impractical.unique and romantic.

At Cornell University, Risley Residential Col-lege is housed in a gothic castle that was given anew life through student initiative, fostered and en-couraged by the sympathetic support of theadministration. Judith Goodman, class of '71, dis-tressed by the absent( of interaction in her dorm.conceived the idea of establishing an "art dorm fornon-art majors. After listening to her ideas andhelping expand them into a detailed plan of proce-dure, the university gave her the go-ahead, provid-ing that she could find enough students to fill all 200beds. One year later, Risky had no vacancies; in itssecond year there were 300 applications for 70 avail-able spaces. -

By persuading the authorities to eliminatemaid and garbage service in the dorm, Miss Good-

man and her friends acquired $7,000 ($35 per stu-dent) -for renovating their castle, presenting cul-tural programs and entertaining guests. With mate-rials contributed by the college and a boundlesssupply of energy as their only other assets, the stu-dents spent one summer remodeling Risley. Base-ment maids' rooms were made into six practicerooms; other unused spaces were transformed intoa darkroom, a dance studio, a theatre and a coffee-house. Lighting was installed for an art gallery,some soundproofing was added to the music rooms,and dingy walls were painted in vivid colors.

Concerts quickly became a weekly event atRisley, with both townspeople and faculty partici-pating. Films, lectures, karate, photography andballet classes, wine tasting, poetry reading and stu-dent-produced plays are just a part of Risley's cul-tural ferment. Visiting artists in residencemusicians, art historians, philosophers, musicians orpaintersare a regular part of dorm life. Two suitesare set aside to accommodate the temporary guests.who live in the dorm and lecture informally. Thevisitors, along with 30 invited faculty members,regularly eat at the college, thus assuring stim-ulating mealtime conversation.

Risley is a coed dorm for free spirits; rules arefew, with the exception of a mandatory 10-meal perweek board plan. However, eating in the elegant din-ing room with the faculty guests and the notablevisitors is considered more of an honor than a duty.

To end their first year with a suitable flourish,

33

Risky students put on a medieval fair. Everyonecame dressed in 13th-century costume, the buildingwas decked with banners and there were jesters, acrobats, troubadours, a bawdy play, a roast sucklingpig and madrigal singei-s. It would be hard to find adorm that better fulfills Robert Hutchins' criteriafor a university: "The whole business about auniversity and about education can be summed upin a question: Has it vitality: Is anything going on?Is there anything exciting about it? This is the onlytest of a good university."

Michigan State UniversityJustin Morrill College at Michigan State Universityhas much in common with Risley College; it offersan exciting living-learning program which succeedsdespite the fact that it is housed in a wholly inade-quate building. Justin Morrill's students, however.take courses in their dorm as well as live and eatthere. Modeled after the separate colleges whichcomprise Oxford and Cambridge Universities in

England, the curriculum emphasizes the humanitiesand cross-cultural studies. Small, informal classes(writing workshops are limited to seven studentsallow professors to discuss. rather than lectufe. In-dependent study is encouraged. since students areable to work closely with their professors. who haveoffices right in the dorm. Such proximity makes in-formal. impromptu meetings a common occurrence.Faculty and students often eat together ant' in thisway get to know each other as people. not just as

34

names on a list. The alienated, fragmented existencethat is the plight of many students at a largeuniversity is not the fate of students at Justin Mor-rill, which combines all the advantages of the smallliberal arts college with the readily available re-sotirces of the large university.

The financial advantages of the sub-college ascompared to the small independent liberal arts col-lege are obvious: the sib-college can draw on all theexpensive resources of the parent university withouthaving to pay the total cost of maintaining those re-sources. Professors ( and their salaries) can also beshared by the big and the little school.

Justin Morrill occupies an undistinguishedhigh-rise building. When the new college took overthe former dormitory in 1965. not a single structuralchange was made. One floor of bedrooms becamefaculty offices by being refurnished- and renamed:recreation rooms and common rooms became class-rooms in much the same manner. In 1970, whenfunds were allotted for remodeling. it was decidedto let the students themselves plan how the moneywould be used. To insure that their decisions were

made with care and reason. Justin Morrill becamethe subject of a seminar offered for credit at NISI!.

The 70 students who participated in the coursewere firm believers in the theory that .the en-vironment belongs to everyone, therefore everybodyshould have a hand ir. reshaping it. They turned outa mammoth 250-page "Environment Report" thatdeals with both the grandiose and mundane aspects

r--

of college life. A philosophy of education, the politi-cal structure of the university and the inner work-ings of the state legislature are just a few of the top-ics bravely tackled in the report. 'Nue.. by anarchitect. the seminar was "a rigorous course in therealistic process of problem-solving."

As a result of their studyand the reality oflimited funds the students decided it would be pos-sible to change their environment without changingthe building structurally. The one classroom theyredecorated has proved their point; by lowering theceiling, covering one wall with a blackboard and theothers with bright paint. enclosing radiators. carpet-ing the floor and making "desks" out of carpet-cov-ered orange crates, they created an inviting, warmatmosphere where none existed before.

University of MichiganJustin Morrill is not unique. Another sub-college isthriving at the University of Michigan, in AnnArbor. The Residential College within the multi-university was conceived in 1965 by several fac-ulty members in the College of Literature. Scienceand the Arts who mustered widespread supportamong administrators and students. Students havecontinued to be involved in high-level decision mak-ing since the early planning of the college.

The original site chosen was 11/2 miles from themain campus, but students felt that was too farfrom the rest of the activity of the main campus.About $3 million was spent in renovating East

Quadrangle of the main campus. Originally built inthe 1930's as a residence for 1,200 men, it is oneblock square. Only 750 of the 1.200 students at theResidential College live in East Quadrangle. Dr.Donald Brown, a psychologist at the college, saysthat the residential concept is viable in today's socie-ty only when some degree of off-campus living is al-lowed. A number of seniors have expressed the de-sire to move back into the residential quarters, per-haps because of the housing shortage in Ann Arbor.

The Residential College at Ann Arbor has. todate. proven successful in trying to make the con-temporary university more personal and relevant tothe student interested in a liberal arts education. Atthe end of the freshman year. the most striking im-pact that the Residential College has had upon itsstudents is that its students are more satisfied withthe faculty, administration and fellow students thanthe students on the main campus.

Sub-colleges can work, but only when theyhave specific and unique educational goals whichare furthered by the residential concept. When dis-ciplines become stronger than the colleges theyserve, community sense is weakened and the raisond'art' of each is lost.

Cluster CollegesThe American precursor of the living-learning col-lege originated with the Claremont Colleges inSouthern California in the 1920's. Their continuedsuccess can be measured by the number of students

35

living on campus. completing the educational goal.as set by university policy. The following figureschart 1971-72 enrollment.

FullTime

Students

On-CampusHous-

ing

% OfStudents

Housed OftCampus

Claremont Men's 789 721 8.7

iarvcv Mudd 392 324 17.4

Pit ze r 718 029 12.4

Pomona 1285 1083 15.8

Scripps 509 45 12.0

All colleges have agreed to a maximum en-rollment of SOO. with the exception of Pomonawhich will go to 1.300. The central housing officethinks that these numbers can be absorbed in cam-pus housing without threatening the related ed-ucational value of on-campus residences or provok-ing a move off campus. An unpublished report fromthe planner's office states that a large concentrationOf off-campus students could impose actual orimaginary threats to the greater Claremontcommunity. which would ultimately prove det-rimental to the colleges.

Another working example of the cluster con-cept is the University of the Pacific at Stockton.California. Stanley Green. associate director ofhousing. believes that the trend to off-Lampus livingthat started a few vars ago is reversing. II is reasonsare that

36

11 Students like the integration of formal ed-ucation and peer-group contact :2) Most off-campus living facilities are too farfrom campus action:31 Student desires are being met by apartmews. the separation of graduate students to

- give them more privacy. coed living and looserrestrictions (e.g.. students may now paint theirown rooms) ;4) \I ore students have been included in all ad-ministrative committees.

Full TimeUnder- Housed At

Graduates College'Housed OnCampus**

COP 2220 943 1317

Raymond 200 102 19

Callison 247 175

( 'owl i

of enrollment

188 114 20

** elsewhere than college of enrollment

The majority of students are housed in res-itlene halls at their respective college.. with fresh-men and sophomores required to live out campus un-less they live at home, with close relatives or workfor their board in someone's home. Additional &anl-pus include. 300 students in town houseapartment. and 210 in fraternities and sororities.

more recent cluster college opened in 1965 atSanta Cruz with 650 under ;graduates and 40 faculty

The harshness of living in dormitories with long, double-loaded corridors and two-bed rooms can be softened byenlightened administration policies. However, the best

improvements result from abandoning the old dormitory-style living in favor of suites, apartments or single rooms.Some of the alternatives are shown on the following pages.

Ritmo& lingPublic spaces as well as bedrooms should be remodeled tomake a residence acceptable to students. Lobby of Tub-man Hall, Bowie State College, Md.

TurnkeyBuilders can contract to design and construct studenthousing and let the college staff remain free of manage-ment chores until the key of the completed building ishanded over. Stanford University, Calif. 1, -

,IL.

-................lru....

7M.

Old HousesStudents like to turn old houses into homes to suit theirstyle of living, but high rents, crime and neighbors' hos-tility can take the gilt off. Madison, Wis.

.-1,.._Apirsirr-

-, , ,, , , \

r.: 1` '. 1

: j. N A, .0,,,,,4.:*1,

";,..v-, , .-I.I - , " ::' net '

...cs!.11"; ......

. .

1,,e ,41!.,;! 4 ; Ai. IR

a, ' ,.

. 1-irrA111/711. 11114.14113111inv 1 RIM n .1 .I..

4L ...4.1;

- ,

Student ParticipationFamilies, married and single students and staff live inapartments designed to meet students' request for a vari-ety of social contacts in buildings of not more than 30people. University of Maryland.

Industrialized BuildingConstruction costs for apartment towers for students aresaid to be lower because of factory production of large-scale components. Buildings were designed by developerto meet client's performance specifications. University ofDelaware.

o

eR,/

Houses for twelve students are built with prefabricated"boxes" delivered to the site complete with carpeting andbathroom fixtures. Students live in single rooms that are

equipped with kits of plywood boxes and shelves that can window alcoves to give students a wide range of furniturebe stacked or hung on the walls. Beds or desks fit into the arrangements. Bard College, N.Y.

".

1,

44;

..

Systems BuildingAn integrated approach to building that dovetails thestructure with lighting, mechanical and electrical services.

4

URBS, a system developed for college housing, was usedfor student apartment:, at the University of California atSan Diego.

4.

at

Cooperative HousingNonprofit co-op housing offers students a cheaper way tolive than commercial housing and gives them experience

in managing the financing and running of their houses.HUD assists in financing student co-ops. Rochdale Village,University of California at Berkeley.

.:,roca 1.a5 -11. / VS 0 .7', 111,

4rioargw: 4,,,,,,,,41,54.. 44 ar rAlnalt Ort.:'ilr.. 1

41/41111111141414

.1.5 1%0 iti, 'r 1.- -1 OW rc',....., a a. ' . I

116444640.Wilt El ..grii z ,'.': 'AMEN .. :111,,...%

: .F., i MU .1-4,1, 4; ca p ::-.13 :...1141r.

-nr.:5A) .-. ie as ... , . 4,14. 4 .4 r .Act1111.1111 ,.. I t c VZ 4 / ..,.'..... in. 1

_ rdr....LATer 0 :mat. 44,- 4X3N424TilleV01111111M 4.MEMNON ... Mail, 4 ,.. 4 44 .. .. r , % ..111 :

. 1 so411.0412 -,. - ..ta On. 7/4PM, if rSPYS a WM- lot .. r-.4,4111, - ticagia NM 4. , : ..4

: , 4 altil CI a 1.114641111r1 Ira,' to .1 . s. , st,,t .- ,t ,- 12 all'

.41In

. SALVO%A /o/Nr

Temporary HousingTrailers provide economical housing while waiting forpermanent buildings to be completed. Students often pre-fer trailers to conventional residences because the scale

offers privacy and their own front door (right, StanfordUniversity). When trailers at the University of Californiaat Santa Cruz (left) were removed, the land was re-claimed for a sports field.

Commercial HousingFurnished apartments built specifically for students arepopular at colleges located in towns. If 4 or 5 share anapartment, the individual cost of room and food is com-parable to college housing but the personal advantagesare immeasurable.

01611111

Family HousingA term preferred to married housing since it can includesingle students and staff with children. With increasinggraduate enrollments the need for family housing alsoincreases. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1

Students want spaces that allow them privacy when it'sneeded and the opportunity for gregariousness when themood takes them. They want to live on a human scale in-stead of in impersonal dormitories, and they do'n't wanttheir colleges to be surrogate parents.

members. It was' the first residential college of a

complex planned to be increased at intervals. In1972, six colleges were completed and two moreopened in temporary facilities.

The campus is located in a scenic area 75 milessouth of San Francisco. The colleges are based onthe Oxbridge concept. but, unfortunately, thearchitecture is Oriented more towards the surround-ing beauty of the countryside than the communityspirit of the individual colleges. The newness andexperimental nature of this cluster has attractedhighly individualistic students. The regulation (lot Inrooms. double-loaded corridors and gang baths havenot proven adequate to many of the students exceptthose in Crown College. Crown College is the onecollege that was built with an eye to the prime con-cerns of the residential concept and student-facultyintercommunication, instead of the surroundingview, The architect of Crown was the only architectwho did not see the site before planning a college.

The enrollment in the fall of 1972 was 4.450 un-dergraduates distributed throughout eight colleges.It was planned that 65(,; of the students would liveon campus. but the dorm occupancy rate has fallenconsiderably below the 90(,; needed to break even.The actual occupancy rate is probably closer to80,; . Of the students who have moved off campus.many have moved into large old houses or beachand mountain cabins. and some have moved intonearby communes.

Provost Robert Edgar. of Kresge College.which opened in 1971, finds. 'Mere is an earlymaturation of students now. The concept of the res-idential college is an anachronism.' Nonetheless, hehos faith in the general concept of living-learningcolleges. Ile believes that the proper approach hasnot yet been tried. His idea of a true residentialcomplex is a place where students could simulatethe "outside alien world with none of the real ad-verse influences that exist there." Margaret Meadagreed with him in terming the living-learning com-plex "ingrained" in its present state.

37

There was a time when dormitories seemed to bedesigned to mold student beim% ior into au orderlcontrollable pattern of submission. Now studentsare molding dormitories. College officials. eager tobuild dormitories that students w ill like. are beseig-ing them with questionnaires inquiring about livingpreferences.

Fortunately, student opinion reflects an amaz-ing degree of unanimitN on the subject of housing: avariety of studies and opinion polls all indicate thatstudents want to live in apartments or suites thathave private kitchens and bathrooms.

The Penn State -study of student opinion spec-ifies that students not only want apartments. butideally. single bedrooms w it h in the apartment . TheN

want ample -points of contact- t game rooms. craftrooms. :seminar rooms. mu,i, rooms) with other stu-dents. close contact also with an outdoor area thatis inviting and secluded from automobiles. andbuildings low enough not to require elevators.

The U.S. Office of Education conducted adormitory opinion poll in 1969, and the conclusionsare the same: apartment :ire the preferred style ofbuilding. If more proof i. needed. one has only tovisit campuses where there are both traditionaldorms and apartments or living suite,: the dormsmay have empty rooms. but the other resident es. areinvariably occupied. t1 it. higan State Universityrecently remodeled part of Fee I fall. a traditionaldorm which was suffering a large number of vat an-cies. Ily spring 1971. that part of the building

38

which had been converted into apartments was to-tally occupied: the remaining portion of the dormstill had 1$ ; of its rooms empty.

The one argument that can be convincing1Nmustered in opposition to apartments is that the}arc more expensive to build. However. there is

evidence to counter even this contention. If studentsin a dorm are living two to a room. space must beprovided elsewhere in the building for quiet study.television. music, meeting friends. snacking. All ofthese "extras." in addition to hallways. which mustbe duplicated on nearly every floor. consume a greatmany square feet and a great deal of money.

There is evidence. too. to support the argumentthat maintenance costs are lower in apartments,since students clean their Own units. Private bathsadmittedly cost more to install than gang baths. butthey cost I C:Ns to Maintain because. again, they re-quire no maintenance staff. The same can be saidfor all the public spaces. dining rooms and hallwaysin traditional dorms: rising labor costs make theseareas expensive to maintain.

Apartments offer other financial advantages aswell. Since they arc suitable for married couples andcan house adults of both sexes under the same roof.they can be used during the summer for con-ent1ons, seminars and Meeting:. ii D estimates

that Near-round occupancy of residence, can in-crease their annual earned income by 25'.; to 33'; .

Apartment lip ing appeals to students because itallows them to lead private lies and still be part of

toe college community. Similarly, apartments makeit possible to mix different kinds of people withease: graduate students, faculty with children, visit-ing lecturers, townspeopleall can live under thesame roof. It is this ability to accommodate differ-ent life-styles and different kinds of people thatmakes apartments a favorite with studentsandwith two. which is quite emphatic about its prefer-ence for apartments. In a circular sent to all the re-gional offices in October 1971, potential applicantsare warned. "till) will not approve straight dormi-tory-style projects unless the long-term prospectsfor student occupancy are good..'.. Many students,especially upper division and graduate.students. nolonger want to live in the traditional dormitories.Apartment and suite-style projects, both on and offcampus, are becoming more and more popular.Apartment-style projects offer better security to

lenders because of better student acceptance andthe flexibility for assignment as either student hous-ing or family housing."

Not every campus will find apartments to bethe panacea for housing problems. Constructioncosts are high, and if capital funds are low, the col-lege should consider the alternative physical plan ofsuites or clusters. The main difference is in the num-ber of bedrooms sharing a kitchen and livingroom. A workable cluster includes about 12 bed-rooms. whereas apartments are most manageablewith under six bedrooms.

loth apartments and clusters of single roomscan be designed to include the desirable qualitiesthat are conspicuously absent from dormitories:privacy, individual control over daily schedules.personal space. group space and places to entertain.

39

People responsible for large building programs areturning away from the established design andconstruction procedures because of the difficulty ofgetting buildings completed at their originallyestimated cost and date. In the traditional sequenceof building, an owner ( the client) hires an architectto design a building. The architect hires consultantsto assist in preparing plans and SPCCirwatiOlIS for abuilding that a contractor will build for a lump stintor for cost plus an agreed profit. The contractor isusually selected by competitive bidding.

Early in the discussion stage, the owner andthe architect establish how much money is to lwspent on the building, and the architect "cuts thecoat to suit the client's cloth." Unfortunately. thearchitect's estimates are often below the contrac-tors' bids for the worksometimes by as much as30f,; below. The owner either has to raise additionalfunds or he must have the building redesigned tomeet the budget.

Two major options are available for an

administrator to circumvent uncontrolled budget-ing. One is to tell developers what sort of building iswanted and how much can be spent and let themmake proposals for designing and building it. Theother option is to follow the traditional building se-quence but to hire a construction manager at thesame time as the architect so that they can worktogether to establish realistic cost estimates.

The difference between the two methods is thatwith the former, the client-owner does not hire an

40

architect to design the building. This procedure isgaining ground throughout the country. One of thelarger building programs in the United States. theDormitory Authority of the State of Xew York hasstarted to use it, and two recognizes it for collegehousing programs. nen calls the procedure PackageConstruction Contracts; New York State calls itTurnkey Proposals: am) there are other names.such as developer proposals and design-constructcontracts.

Under any name. the effectiveness of the meth-od is directly proportionate to the accuracy andcompleteness of the instructions given by the clientto competing developers. These instructions arecalled performance specifications; they specify howthe proposed building must perform. For instance.traditional specifications state the nin»ber. size. po-sition and quality of lighting fixtures in a room offixed dimensions. whereas performance specifi-cations state that a room has to perform a certainfunction for so many people and as part of its en-vironment it should have a stated level of lighting atthe work surfaces.

Although the building will be designed by archi-tects selected by the developer who wins the con-tract, the client usually retains his own consultantarchitect, unless there are qualified people on hisstaff. The consultant will write the performancespecifications and oversee the evaluation of theproposals submitted by developers. A detailed andlogical evaluation is critical to the success of this

method of developing buildings. When the per-formance specifications have been written. theowner invites developers to offer preliminary de-signs on itkow they propose to meet the spec-ifications. Before this invitation is made. the ownerestablishes the competence in design, construction.management and bonding of the developers. Also.before making the invitation, the owner decideswhether the developers should bid for the costs ofthe design and construction proposals, or whether( should state what the building must cost and

have the proposals based on that price,New York State is building dormitori...s at

Brockport on the fixed price method. It was decidedthat each bed should cost about 3(,,; below theprevailing state rate of $6,000, and performancespecifications for 1,000 beds that would cost$3.825.000. no more and no less, were written. Thiseliminates all cost figures from the proposal-biddingdocuments and leaves the state free to award a con-tract solely on the quality of responses to the per-formance specifications.

Brockport drew inquiries from 31 developerswanting to he prequalified in order to make propos-als. The university accepted 12 firms, but somewithdrew, leaving S to finally submit proposals toBrockport's jury.

There's more in this procedure for the ownerthan simply knowing exactly what the building willcost. There's the time element, the quality of plan-ning enforced by writing performance specifications

and the exposure to several design solutions. Brock-port, for instance, evaluated five different Iesignsfor its campus housing. The Province of Ontario inCanada has a campus housing agency that receivesan average of nine proposals for each project,

The architectural design for a packageconstruction contract is usually done by a firm al-lied with the developer. Few developers employstaff designers. so they team with an architecturalfirm for specific contracts depending upon the typeof building. One of the side benefits is that it breaksthe monopoly of college commissions held by somelong-established architectural firms and exposes ad-ministrators to fresh design solutions by firms that%mid not otherwise have had access to universityprojects. It also drastically changes the client's re-lationship with an architect since the design is man-aged by the developer.

University of VermontThe impetus to break from tradition and use per-formance specifications instead of separate desigsand construction contracts at the University of N'er-mont originated with an academic innovation thatcarried over into management innovation. The ac-ademic innovation started in 1%9 when an old res-idence hall was turned into a living-learningdormitory and 120 of Vermont's freshmen were in-vited to live and study in it. Small seminars and tu-torials were created for the program, which manybelieve sliereeded in overcoming three- problems

41

confronting the university: estrangement betweenstudent and faculty because of increasing spe-cialization: a lack of relevance attributed to imper-sonal lecture courses and rigid examinations: loss ofa sense of community.

The relevance of this living-learning ex-periment encouraged the university administratorsto decide that the next residences should be de-signed to meet the additional program needs of a res-idential sub-college. To finance the dormitory whichwould house both classrooms and bedrooms underthe-same roof, Vermont obtained a ioint grant fromHUD and the U.S. Office of Education.

The management innovation started with_ Mel-vin Dyson, the university's vice-president for busi-ness and financial affairs, who was convinced thatMany of the cost over-runs. as well as the bitter bat-tles which inevitably accompany such projects.could be eliminated if an architect and a builderwere linked together as a team to design and build afacility. Further problems could be eliminated. hesurmised._ if the university established a fixed pricefor the project so that the teams would not becompeting for the low bid, but would instead com-pete for the best design solution to the problem.

The university received a grant from EFL tohire a consultant to develop the contracting proce-dures and work with a team of students, faculty andadministrators to develop a detailed building pro:gram for the $5.7 million living-learning complexfor 600 students and 15 faculty members. The

42

proposal calls for five low-rise clusters. each On-mining 27 apartments: three for faculty families and24 for five students apiece.

Stating that "a simple, clear building envelopewill not meet the users' needs,- the specifications callfor a -noninstitutional building,' an integration ofliving space with classroom and outdoor space, fac-ulty apartments with play areas for children. in-formal seminar rooms, a snack bar and congenialdining room. conversation -pits:" faculty offices.craft rooms, opportunities for both privacy and so-cial interaction, a "homey feeling," and an at-mosphere "conducive to concentration:: In otherwords, the program was planned in detail. Not onlyphysical needs. but social, spiritual and intellectualneeds were carefully defined.

An involved evaluation matrix was devised sothat each of the three final proposals ( ten teams ap-plied for prequalification f could be judged objec-tively by a numberscif individuals from a variety ofbackgrounds and disciplines.

Vermont's living-learning center will be readyfor occupancy in September 1973. The plans insurea building that can be adapted to a variety of uses.It will accommodate any imaginable interestgroupengineers:liberal arts students. nursing. ag-riculture, mathematicians or language students. Theuniversity hopes to get a variety of undergraduatesliving together, exchanging ideas. Whether all theprofessors who teach' in the dorm will live there.whether the students who live in the dorm will take

all their ciAirs- therethese procedural questionscan be decided later on, since the building is flexibleenough to adapt to many choices.

Hampshire CollegeAt a time when many small liberal arts colleges arestruggling to survive. Hampshire College. whichopened its -doors in 1970. is bursting with stu-dentsand pride

In May 1971, Hampshire decided- to increaseits revenue by enrolling about 90 new students thefollowing September. The college did not need to in-crease its faculty or teaching spaces. but it wouldhave to provide beds in an extremely short time. Tofacilitate construction., Hampshire's architect wroteperformance specifications for accommodations sothat developers could design buildings that theycould complete within the time limit.

The low bidder submitted the most attractivedesign. and. as it turned out. one of the fastest build-ing schedules on record. just SS working days aftersigning a contract:- the developer _completed_ twobuildings- containing a total of eight bed-:. Notsurprisingly, the buildings were prefabricated inbox forms and shipped to the she to be stacked- intwo stories. All the interior plumbing, kitchen equip-ment and carpeting were installed in the factory.Students live in. duplex apartments with five or sixbedrooms, a living room and a complete kitchen. byspacing the prefab monules radially in a circularbuilding, the design allows space for a central com-

mon area that was roofed in place.Although built in a factory, there is nothing

institutional about the new dorms. They are gardenapartments clad in cedar shakes and located amongtrees. Each pair of apartments shares an entrancelobby, and after entering the apartment doora resi-dent is in his or her own bome which is shared witha- few other students. Most students enjoy thismixed, natural way of living. Those that tire oftheir colleagues sloppy housekeeping can more tothe older dorms with suites.

Hampshire believes apartments are an excitingalternative to regular dorms and in September,1972, is opening three more buildings almostidentical to the two round structures. The fireround apartment buildings will house 220 studentsand, with a master's house added, will form anotherHouse in the college residence system.

Because Hampshire's first two apartment build-ings were built on an undeveloped part of the cam-pus, their initial cost had to include a power sub-station and long water and sewer lines. Nevertheless,the apartments were-completed for $8.000 per bed.or S28 per sq. ft. The three similar buildings underconstruction at this writing are contracted for less.

University of MarylandApartment residences were the choice of a commit-tee of students and administration that shaped therequirements for student housing at the CollegePark campus of the University of Maryland. With

43

help from both the students and staff of the Depart-ment of Architecture, the college formulated per-formance specifications for the eventual housing of630-occupants.

The conuuittee specified that all units must beself-sufficient apartments and that no more than 30people be housed in a single, low-rise dwelling, witha maximum of, 75 people per acre of land. All-of theother student- inspired specifications focus on theword "variety."

) A variety of units- must be provided, sincepeople have different tastes, attitudes- andneeds. Four different floor plans were pro-vided; some have single rooms; some housefour, others six; some have two bathrooms:and one floor plan is particularly suitable for afamily.

2) A variety_ of peoplemarried and unmar-ried, undergraduate and graduate students.staff and faculty familieshave to beaccommodated in the complex. The differenttypes and sizes of apartments make it possiblefor the university to accommodate a mixture oftenants with ease.

3) A variety of social contacts must be "builtin."- This has been accomplished in a -numberof ways: outdoor walkways provide congenialconnections between apartments; an outdooramphitheatre in the center of one building clus-ter was created out of earth berms so ehat_stu--

44

dents have an intimate, sheltered meetingplace; there is a basketball court.The committee not only gave developers design_

criteria, it also required that the first stage of thecontract: be built with modular units so that thehousing would be available within six months. The$1,540,000 winning bid for the first 258 occupants_( just under $6.000 a bed) was completed in 150 cal-endar days.

Because prefabricated buildings containidentical components, a monotonous symmetryoften characterizes their appearance. Maryland'sarchitects avoided this pitfall by setting stairwellsand windows at diagonal angles to the superstruc-ture._ Another kind of monotony was avoided in Theinterior of the dorm; the choice of furnishings, andfabrics was given to a student team which selecteda different color scheme for each apartment.

The fact that each apartment has its ownentrance gives an added dimension of freedom tothe Maryland dormitories. Unfortunately, it alsogives an added dimension of freedom -to unwantedvisitors and intruders. Maryland, and other cam-puses across the country. particularly those in

urban areas, have been plagued by thefts mug-gings, rapes and even murders. Afraid for the safetyof their students and aware, too, that adversepublicity might cause a decrease in enrollment.many universities are tightening campus security. ftis ironic that students themselves arc urging theirschools to hire more policementhe same policemen

who, only a short time ago. were the object of ep-ithets and brickbats.

Leased FacilitiesThe package construction concept resulting fromperformance specifications does not relieve a collegeof finding capital funds to pay for its buildings.However, if capital is tight, the college 'can ask adeveloper to build the facilities with his own capitaland lease the buildings back to the college. The col-lege pays the rent with operating funds, and at theend of a specified _period it can take title to theproperty. This leaseback arrangement may not. beallowed under some state laws or the bylaws of in-dividual colleges.

Developers who design, build and finance facil-ities are usually called turnkey-dperators, since allthat remains for a client to do is turn the key andenter the finished building. Contracts. vary, butusually a client can specify the features he wants ina proposed building, and, for a price, the turnkeybuilder will supply them. The client does not retainthe same control in turnkey contracts as he doeswhen building with his own capital, either throughan architect or through performance specifications.

A major drawback to this process is that pri-vate investment must make a profit and may sac-rifice quality for cost. Proper specifications can pre-clude undue continuing maintenance costs. Western'Washington State College boasts such a successfuloperation. Built on a 71/2-acre wooded site, construc-

tion was done by a private contractor in a turnkeyoperation at a cost of $4,000 per bed. Over 500 stu-dents are housed in two-bedroom, carpeted and fur-nished apartments. Amenities include laundries,saunas and recreational areas. There have been novacancies since the complex opened in 1970.

Privately owned and operated dormitories areanother approach to satisfying housing needs whilethe university gets out of the developing, buildingand maintenance business. Developmeni companiesbuild dormitories on private land outside the cam-puses and pay local real estate taxes on the proper-ties. Facilities are often more luxurious than collegedormsairconditioning and swimming poolsandstudents pay more :rent for the academic year thanon campus. Cafeterias in the private dorms operateon a food plan. Few of-the rooms are single-occupan-cy; a typical arrangement is for two double roomsto share a bathroom. Strict rules are made aboutdamage to property. and no decorating is permitted.Occupancy rates vary among the colleges; some are100(;.; . while others are below the financial break-even point.

One of the largest privately funded high-risedormitories, a 17-story, triple-tower dormitory for1200 students at Duquesne University in Pitts-burgh.. was built at a total cost of $10.3 million.The dormitories, including a swimming pool, roof-top sunbathing terraces and the universitydispensary, are leased to the university for 15 years,at which time ownership will revert to Duquesne.

45

Multistory apartment-buildings have been construc-ed with large factory-built components in Europefor a couple-of decades, but industrialized buildinghas not been assimilated by the U.S. constructionindustry. Attempts_have been made to import ordevelop industrialized systems, and the -secretary oftiun made the encouragement of industrialized hous-ing an 'Official government policy when he launchedOperation Breakthrough in 1969. About $60 millionhas been appropriated to develop 22 housing sys-tens built on nine Breakthrough sites, which thegovernment hopes will effedively demonstrate theadvantages of factory-built construction systems.However, the sad fact remains that in this countrythe full potential for lowering costs and speedingconstruction -has yet to be realized.

HUD'S area offices are prepared to advise col-leges on opportunities resulting from OperationBreakthrough and package construction techniques.The agency states, "It is nun policy to encouragethe use of innovative techniques tluit reduce theoverall cost of housing. Applicants are encouragedto investigate the many possibilities for using newmethods and techniques in designing, contractingand constructing housing projects and to includeany such plans in their application." One of thethings that HUD means by "new methods and tech-niques" is factory-built modules ( which includewalls, floors and ceilings or roofs) that can betrucked to a site and rapidly assembled. These unitsinclude interior finishes, bathrooms and kitchens.

46

New Jersey CampusesOne of the industrialized housing projects sup-ported by two outside of its Breakthrough programis for 36,000 students on six campuses of the NewJersey State Higher Educational Institutions. Foryears, New Jersey had been exporting most of itsstudents to other states for their higher education.but the enormous increase in applications to statecolleges _made mandatory a rapid expansion of theexisting New Jersey schools. Since speed-and econo-my were essential components in planning the stu-dent housing, New jersey chose industrializedconstruction.

Students will live in apartments with two bed-rooms, a kitchen and a living-dining room. Con-tracts were awarded in December 1971. Half thebuildings will be occupied in September, 1972, andthe rest are expected to open a year later. Con-ventionally constructed dorms would have ,takenone,and one-half years to complete: the shortenedconstruction time, of course, reduces labor costs.New Jersey's two-story apartments cost between$5,000 and $6,000 per bed, as compared with810,000 per bed in conventional brick, dorms withgang toilets and large dining rooms. Some of NewJersey's apartmefit buildings are six stories high:the per bed cost of these is $7,000, which includes'}the cost of elevators and added features to conformvith fire safety regulations. A major factor in Newjersey's low per-bed cost is the price advantageof nuts procurement of factory-built modules.

University of DelawareThree of the techniques described in this publica-tion were included in the student housing thatopened at the University of Delaware in 1972. Thestudents live in apartments that were designed tomeet performance specifications and were built withindustrialized components. A 17-story and a 16-story tower contain 452 apartments that accom-modate 1,300 students and staff. Just over half theapartments have one bedroom, the others have two.All bedrooms contain two beds.

Delaware got the type of accommodation thatstudents wantapartments: but it didn't get themin the setting that national student opinion callsforsmall buildings clustered informally. Inst-ead.the apartments line double-loaded corridors in astyle severely criticized on many campuses.

After the team of developer, architect andcontractor had submitted a conventionally built' de-sign, it found that time could be saved and roomspace enlarged by building with laige-precast)con-crete components. The revised plan was accepted bythe university. Total time for designing and buildingthe project was 18 months, -which compares wellwith- the -36 months required for constructiononly of a low-rise project for 770 beds built con-ventionally during an overlapping period. However.industrialized building systems can't take all thecredit for the difference since-the-low-rise projectwas hit by two labor strikes.

The university paid about $13 million for the

total industrialized project, which, in addition tohousing, includes a commons building with lounges.seminar rooms and recreational facilities. Thedevelopers' contract for $10.5 million included fur-niture, and the remaining $2.5 million covered fees,administration and site development.

Bard College_Bard College, a private college fot 700 studentslocated 100 miles north of New York City, builtprefabricated lumber dorms in 1972 to atcommo-date 84 students in suites of single rooms. Twelvestudents live in each of seven buildings. Each build-ing houses six students on a floor, and each floor isarranged so that three bedrooms share a showerroom and a toilet room. A common room with akitchen is provided in each building, but, because itis on a separate floor, it does not serve as a livingroom in the sense of an apartment plan such as thenew Hampshire College dorms.

At Bard the onus is on the students to maketheir bedrooms into self-contained living-sleepingrooms. This is made easier by the kit of furnitureunits supplied to each resident. All rooms are thesame size and shape; some, however, overlook thetrees on the downhill side of a steep site, and the oth-ers face onto a campus lane. Rooms are-lined withplywood painted white and drilled to receive brack-ets for supporting shelves and furniture. The fur-niture is also plywood painted white, whenwhen thedorms opened, the first tenants were offered seven

47

colors of paint with which to decorate their rooms.No closets are built into the rooms, but a stor-

age unit is included in the kit along with wall boxeswith hinged fronts, drawers on casters for under thebeds, book shelves and a desk top. A window alcoveis sized to contain a bed or the desk top, and bedscan be flat on the floor, normal height or elevated onslotted steel legs. Carpeting varies in color amongthe rooms, and the public spaces are carpeted sothat when a student enters the small building hefeels he is really in his own house.

Bard's new housing is- technically advancedsince it is built with prefabricated "boxes" po-sitioned vertically instead of horizontally. The unitswere built in a factory that installed the bathrooms,carpeting, doors, etc., before trucking them to thesite. This theoretically gives the contractor greaterquality control over the components than when theyare built in the field. It also reduced the over-allconstruction time.

Bard paid about $27 a sq it (or $8300 perbed) for its student housing. This price includes thesite work and fees, but it does not include the fur-niture. (A separate contract for $40;000 covered thebedroom furniture.) It does include $65,000 Bardlost through a bankrupt contractor. Financing forthe dorms was aided by a $560,000 loan from HUD.

University of CaliforniaApartments for undergraduate students at---JollnMuir College of the University of California at San

48

Diego-are built with components developed from along search for a better vay to build student hous-ing. The search for a building system was funded byBFL and the university.' Its objective was to developnew or modified componentssuch as a fire-resis-tant structure, partitions and a heating-ventilating-cool ing systemand fit then) together in a variety ofways to produce residences 'that guarantee a high-quality environment without looking as if they wereall stamped from -one mold.

The program, University Residential BuildingSystem ( unis) was funded in the belief that itwould be widely used throughout California and theUnited States. However, the state of California dras-tically diminished its campus building program andused URBS on only one campus. One San Diego res-idence for 320 students is completed, and another isto be started late in 1972.

URUS hardware was created by manufacturersresponding to performance specifications written byconsultants hired by the university. The intensity ofcare in determining the users' requirements dis-tinguishes URI3S from commercial industrializedbuilding systems. Circulation, storage, interior cli-mate, comfort, etc., fulfill the needs of students whowere surveyed prior to design. Manufacturers: re-sponses were judged on the integrity of their design.how they integrated with other products comprisingthe building, and their cost. The specifications werebased on students living in apartments in buildingsof up to 13 stories.

A building constructed with systems compo-nents differs from an ordinary building in the as-signment of responsibility for the parts. Theinanufacturer Of a subsystem muust guarantee thecost, quality, installation and initial maintenance ofthe materials and wort: of all the subcontractorswho participated in that subsystem. Normally theresponsibility is passed along the line of subcontrac-tors who participate in part of a building. One ofthe attractions for an owner is that systems-Compo-nents manufacturers are supposed to guarantee theinstalled price and completion date.

San Diego's John Muir College residence wasnot only the first URBS project: it was also the firstfederally financed project approved by nen forconstruction management contracting. Managementcontracting attempts to lower construction costs byteaming an experienced contractor with an architectwhen the working drawings are being prepared. Themanager recommends the most economical methodsfor detailing the building and develops realistic costestimates to ensure a final design within the owner'sappropriation. At John Muir, the construction man-ager also served in place of a general contractor byworking far a fee-to supervise the subcontractors.However, after the subcontractors' bids were re-ceived. the construction manager could not exceedthe contracted price but was eligible to share anysavings effected by building for less.

3 s

Houses on WheelsWhen-the shortage of housing is acute enough to re-quire immediate relief, some schools have resortedto mobile homes. While the women's dorm at BowieState College, Maryland, was being renovated, themen graciously vacated their dorm and moved intoa village of mobile homes set up on campus. Al-though the renovations have been completed, themen are still in mobile homes. Plans have been ap-proved for new dorms for men but since bothdormitories on campus are now occupied by womenthe men will stay in the mobile village until the newfacility is completed.

The trouble with temporary buildings is thatthere is a danger of their becoming permanent. Themen at Bowie State complain of being cramped andcrowded in their mobile homes,

However, students at the University -of Cali-fornia at Santa Crux preferred living in temporarytrailer residences to regular buildings. Trailers werepopular because they tvere self-contained homeswith two double rooms, a bathroom and direct ac-cess outdoors. Unfortunately for the students, thetrailers were removed when the permanent dormito-ries were completed. This type of residential surgespace can help colleges over housing hurdles. SantaCrux leased its units for two years and placed themalongside a fieldhouse that served as a temporary

1 49

cafeteria. When the trailers left, the university re-claimed the site for playing fields.

Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.assembled a 120-unit mobile project in threemonths and opened it in the fall of 1970. Designedto operate for five years, the units accommodatefour students each, arc close to campus and will bereplaced by permanent dormitories. Housing a totalof over 430 students at a cost of $1.2 million, theproject is expected to be self-liquidating.

At the University_of Illinois at Carbondale, asmall trailer park was created on campus. A tempo-rary measure, the park will be eliminated whenscheduled construction begins.

A mobile unit living area called "The Villages"was developed jointly by a private corporation andSouthwest/ Minnesota State College, in Marshall,Minnesota. The units, considered permanent hous-

_

-ing by the university, were pulled to the site onwheels and set up in quads of four, each dusterhousing 16 students.

Although mobile homes are expedient and inex-pensive, they are not without drawbacks. Cost is re-clued in mobile home construction because theunits are not subject to building code requirementsthat provide for the health and safety of occupants.For instance, mobile homes do not have to providean alternative means of egress. (But if the buyerpurchases sufficient quantity, the manufacturerwill provide extra doors or any other require-ments:) Trailer construction is often considered tobe of lower quality than house or apartment stand-ards, and mobile home manufacturers have some-times not accepted responsibility for defects evenwithin the warranty period.

\Vhatever means a college takes to realizelits re-sponsibility for housing its students, it still faces aresponsibility for preserving or improving the hous-ing of the families in the neighborhood around it.City universities can no longer hide behind the wallsthat edge the campus. If the city beyond the walls is

.deteriorating, then the urban university will deterio-rate too. They share a common fate.

Some schoolsthe University of Chicago, Tem-ple University h Philadelphia and the University ofSyracuse, to name a fewbegan years ago to workwith and listen to the surrounding residents. SinceColumbia suffered its public agonies, however, nobig city school has been able to turn its back on thecity around it. This new community concern is in-spired not only by the nightmare of MorningsideHeights, but by the students themselves, -who aremoving out into the city to live, to study and towork. This fact alone links the university and thecity_together in a symbiotic search for survival.

The ways_ in which universities are respondingto this challenge are numerous; their efforts and theconsiderations and complications invok:ed are, nodoubt, worth a separate book. What follows are buta few_ examples of community-university interac,tion, since no study of college housing would becomplete without some mention of this new andcomplicated dimension. =

MIT is.aware that it is not possible to teach so-cial concerns in the classroom while ignoring theirexistence in the city that surrounds the classroom.

Realizing that a course in city planning must bemore than just an academic exercise, mr and thecity of Cambridge are involved in a joint venture ofurban renewal.

Using university resources,' mil* bought threeparcels of land in Cambridge. Some of the land wasvacant, some had decaying factories on it. After nu-merous meetings of neighborhood planning teamsand MIT officials, it was decided not to remove theland from city tax rolls but to use it for new housingfor the elderly. Seven hundred older citizens willlive in the MIT project when it is completed.

More recently, the university purchased 20 ad-ditional acres adjacent to the campus. Plans call forapartment buildings (both moderate and low in-come) which will house a mixture of students andcity residents. The university's concerns in this pro-ject are far from insular: it hopes to increase jobs,tax revenue and available housing in the commu-nity; it hopes to be a force for change.

It was a similar hope that motivated the Wis-consin State Legislature to establish a committeecomposed of community, student and universitymembers at each of the University of Wisconsincampuses to consider and advise on "policies of theboard of regents, leases, contracts, building plans,grievances and standards of operation." Each com-mittee must make a report on the state of housingat the beginning of every fall semester. Becausetheir situation was particularly grave, the Madisoncampus of the university and the city fathers both

51

contributed funds for te wide-ranging and statisti-cally sophisticated study that suggests many en-lightened solutions to the intricate housing dilemmacreated by a student population of nearly 40.000 ex-isting in the midst of a state capital, population172,000.

The housing crisis at Madison really beganaround 196S when overcrowding in the dormsreached an intolerable peak. The high cost of pri-vate housing kept many students on campus whonormally would have moVed into the surroundingcommunity in their sophomore year. Then the situa-tion was exacerbated by a Board of Regents deci-sion to impose stricter parietal rules in the dormito-ries. The new rules were in response to several ser-ious episodes of campus unrest. Primarily, the newrestrictions succeeded .in forcing students off cam-pus. Cut off from expanding on one side by LakeMendota, students have found accommodation byfanning far out into Madison, renting apartmentspast the traditional one -mile- from - campus limit.

It is not surprising that the local inhabitantsresent the influx of students that has suddenly ap-peared in their midst. They blame the students forthe deterioration of their neighborhoods, and thereis a good deal of truth to,their accusations. Middleclass rents force students to pool resources and ov-ercrowd apartments, creating instant, slums. Sincestudents are short-term tenants, landlords have ex-ploited the situation by raising rents and neglectingrepa'rs. Then there is the undisputed fact that the

52

life-style and appearance of the counterculture is sodivergent from middle class values that it poses apersonal threat to many middle class residents.

It is this confrontation between students andthe residents of Madison that the housing study at-tempts to solve by posing a number of vialgt. alter-native to the present collision course.

Providence, Rhode Island, and Stony Brook,New York, are two more college towns that arefaced with some of the same problems that Madisonhas been struggling with. Until two years ago, theState University of New York's Stony Brook cam-pus was cramming three students into rooms de-signed for two. Now S00 dormitory rooms- arcempty and the university plans to convert two for-mer-dorms into a commuter center and housing formarried students.

The students-2,240 of the 7,000 undergradu-ates enrolledhave moved off campus in search ofcheaper rents and greater freedom. The nearbytown of Brookhaven is -worried about the suddeninflux. Residents are complaining about "groupers,"inflated rents and run-down buildings, One Brook-haven official observed, "Ideally the universityshould provide the kind of housing they need." For-tunately, the Stony Brook situation is too new tohave provoked anything more than mild irritation.- In Providence, however, the situation is farmore desperate. Students from -Brown Universityand the Rhode Island School of Design are displac-ing low-income families from the Inner city. Land-

lords who formerly rented a foim-room apartment toa family for $43 are dividing the apartment intotwo units and raising the rent to $100. Low-incomefamilies ( most of them Portuguese-Americans),unable to compete for housing in the Fox Point areaof Providence. are trying to impose new zoningcodes which would prohibit conversion of familydwellings- into student apartments. An editorial in aProvidence newspaper said, -The best answer is nota shift in zoning controls but in the provision of ad-equate housing for students by the colleges whose

-presence swells neighborhood populations and pres-sure.; But wherever the desire to live off campusis the sole factor in creating a neighborhood housingproblem, the desire ought to be quenched by 'inncollege policy to require all students to live in avail-able college space."

It is evident that the Providence schools willhave to become involved in the life of their city andthey will.have to seek mutually beneficial solutionsto the housing shortage.

53

If they don't want to live in dormitories, and theycan't find a room in town, what do they do? Somestudents pool their problems and their resources byforming a living cooperative. If a university needsadditional living space but does not want to incurthe risk of building more dorms, what can it do?Some schools have found a solution to this dilemmaby sponsoring cooperatives, and on some campusesthe students themselves have formed co-ops.

Living cooperatives first appeared on Americancampuses in the 1930's. in response to the economic

plight and social philosophy then prevalent amongstudents. The cooperative ideology has deep histori-cal roots; the idea that the poor and the poWerlesscan better command their destiny if they band to-gether is as old as the first tribe. Campus coopera-tives trace their origin back to the first successfulconsumer cooperatives which grew out of a weavers'

'strike in 19th century England. In 1844, in thetown of Rochdale, 28 flannel weavers decided. fol-lowing a strike. to pool their pence and rent 41 store.Calling themselves the Rochdale Equitable PioneersSociety, they sold goods among themselves. Thecooperative flourished. and within a decade theirphilosophy had spread throughout England.

The Rochdale weavers formulated 11 princi-ples which are still the basic tenets for all contem-porary cooperatives. The Rochdale Principles pro-

vide for. a totally democratic society of equalswhose motive is not personal profit. 1! ,t rather, abetter life for all. Many of the ideas promulgated in

54

the 19th century cooperatives have again foundfavor with today's students. For instance. the idea

,that in work there is dignity and relevance, the ideathat unbridled competition is a destructive force.the idea that it is dangerous to allow outside -pow-ers" to control one's destiny, the idea that demo-cratic principles must guide everyday lifeall thesecooperative principles are congenial with studentlife-style today.

It is not surprising then that the number ofstudents participating in cooperative housing hastripled on many campuses in the last five years. Atsome schools. cooperative housing is thriving whiledormitories stand empty. Oregon State reports thatthere is a continual waiting list for the cooperatives.-We could keep at least two more houses filled." ahousing official says.

Cooperative housing is owned or leased by thestudents who live in the house and who manage it.It is nonp.ofit housing; and, as such. it provideslodging and meals for students at lower cost. Theamount of savings ranges front $200 to $500 a year(as compared with dormitories) and is a result ofthe fact that students in cooperatives do their ownmaintenaace, management. cooking and food bu -ing. (Each of the co-ops at Oregon State, however,hires a,cook.)'

At the University of Michigan, where Inter-Cooperative Council owns and operates 25 housesworth $2.5 million, savings amount to $400 per year

jter student. At the University of Florida, savings

range from 30% to 50%. Lower labor and adminis-trative costs account for most of the savings. In ad-dition, since a majority of co-ops at Michigan andelsewhere are situated in old houses (sometimes de-funct sororities and fraternities), the initial cost. ofpurchasing the building is low, which naturally re-duces the capital cost per student. Typically. theper bed value of a co-op house is between $2,000and $4,000, as compared with $9,000 in a newdorm. Buying food in large quantities (an optionnot open to the off-campus student unless a foodco-op is started) also results in substantial savings.

For many students, however, cooperative liv-ing is not only a way to save money, it is a way oflife. Usually run on a scrupulously democraticbasis, students living in co-ops have complete con-trol over their environment. They live a totally in-depersdent, adult existence, yet they are not alien-ated from campus life since they live with their col-lege colleagues. Asked to describe what they likeabout co-op living, students cite useful work, oppor-tunities for mature and responsible behavior, closecommunication with fellow students and a stimulat-ing learning environment. For many, the co-op is anideal way of bridging the transition between a de-pendent existence in the caretaker dorms and thetotal independence of off-campus (or post-gradu-ate) life. In the co-op there is always an experi-enced corps of older members to offer advice andcounsel, so that it is possible to feel independentwithout feeling totally alone.

Living in a co-op not only involves students inthe day-to-day maintenance tasks of running ahouse but also, since co-ops have become "big busi-ness," offers an opportunity to assume demandingadministrative positions such as house manager.treasurer or member of the board of directors.Members of the University of Michigan's Inter-Cooperative Council (icc) manage 25 houses, aswell as an ambitious program for expansion. Eachcooperative house at Michigan functions as an inde-pendent entity with its own budget. Membership inicc has plunged Michigan's co-op students into theintricacies of buying and leasing properties, makingloan applications ( to banks and the federal govern-ment ). dealing with zoning _- boards and civicofficials.

Michigan's ice reveals with understandable,pride that banks are eager to lend them money.-We've never missed a payment in forty years. soof course we're a good risk.' reports John Achidie..executive secretary. Achatz, who i.. active in helpingcooperatives get a foothold on other campuses. saysthat the greatest hurdle for new co-ops is establish-ing credit. since hanks are reluctant to take a riskon a new venture.

Not only the business community, but the fed-eral government, too, is beginning to express finan-cial faith in student cooperatives. nun loansfinanced Ice's new North Campus Cooperatives.which cost $1.24 million. Seeing the 216-bed facilitythrough from inception I in 1968) to completion ( in

55

19701 was a momentous task. In addition to compil-ing afletailed grim application. ice's student lead-ers also raised $60.000 in private funds to cover thecost of furniture.

One of the great advantages of co-ops is thatthey are small-30 persons is averageso that each

_member can feel a close sense of identity with the .

group as a whole. The scale of the buildings them--selves is intimate rather than massive._ When tcc de-cidedjto build their new large co-op, they came upwith a unique solution to the problem of bigness.The North-Campus Cooperatives is a cluster of ninethree-story row houses, each housing 24 students.Each house in the cluster has a private entrywayfrom a courtyard into the living room. The irregularshape of the building's shell reflects the different-size double and single rooms in the interior. The ex-terior was intentionally designed to look-like the ir-regularly shaped old houses traditionally used byco -ops. Students who worked with the architects in-sisted on this non-institutional variety of room size.as well as a high proportion of single rooms. goodsoundproofing and dining rooms which can doubleas coffeehouses and film theatres.

mu has not limited its largesse to the Univer-sity of Michigan. The government has funded theconstruction of cooperative dorms at the Universityof California (Berkeley and uctA). Nebraska_Portland and Oregon State. Minnesota and Florida.Most of these are student-owned, rather than uni-versity-owned. nun insists, however, that the stu-

dent corporation receive the support of the univer-'sky and ( if state laws permit that the universityco-sign the loan. HUD officials are disappointed thatthey have received so -few requests for loans to co-ops, since it is felt that cooperatives are a sensiblesolution to the dilemma created by student rejectionof institutional dorms. on the one hand. and theneed for more living space. on the other.

The licu-sponsored .project at Portland StateUniversity is not a cooperative in -the strict, philo-sophical sense, since students living in the new 16-story building are not required to share the choresof running the apartment facility. The 221-unitPortland project is owned by Portland Student-Services, Inc., ( tiss ). a nonprotit,student-controlledcorporation. rss leases and operate nine otherbuildings in addition to the new apartment. Thecorporation fills a desperate need at Portland State.which was originally conceived as a nonresidentialuniversity. In recent years Portland was not able toMeet the demand for inexpensive housing: as stu-dents displaced less-affluent citizens. tensions grewand so did overcrowding. When state money failedto come thniugh for new university buildings on thecampus that were to replace several vacant apart-ment buildings acquired through urban renewal. acoalition of students and .enlightened businessmen(one_of them, fortuitously, a bank vice president ) -_formed a nonprofit corporation. secured a__$10,000loan, renovated the vacant, structures and rentedthem to students. -11 we hadn't had the backing -of

1

the business establishMent, we -never would_ have-gotten our start.- one of the founders of rss- ob-served. The businessmen gave the students the,nec-essary support and Stability, in addition to val-tfable advice and a mechaniim for continuity.

rss is technically not a cooperative since stu-dents who live in the apartments do not share theresponsibility of doing- maintenance. Rents arccheapMtn_ to 30'n below the market price--because the entire -enterprise is nonprofit andefficiently-run. rss hires a few-professional manage-ment and maintenance people to- work with andcoordinate the student employe who form the ma-jority of the staff_ No reductions in rent are offered.only straight salaries:

rss has helped start and support -a low-costcafe and a sewing co-op and helped sit up and se-cure funding for the university's day care center.They are hoping now to offer their expertise toother campuses. The student government associa-tion ;h. the University of Arizona invited rss execu-tives to assess the situation in Tucson. where thehousing shortage is so acute-that students are pay-ing $60 to Al20 a month to live in -renovated'-ga-rages:-The university is reluctant-to buildiiiore dor-niitories. since those that exist are unpopular withstudents._ -

Rochdale Village at the University of Califor-nia at Berkeley is another new apartment buildingwhich is student,owned and student-operated. Al-though no one -who lives in the apartments is re-

quire(' to do a workshilt, the members operate thebuilding by electing a-governing council which inturn hires willing students--=and-pays them a salaryto perform the needed services. Rochdale Villagewas built with IICD funds on land leased from theuniversity. Like the rss facilities. Rochdale Villagehas a waiting list. -

At. schools such as Portland State, Berkeleyand the University of Wisconsin, where. coopera-tives for nonprofit housing corporations) have be-come big business: it is impossible not to be im-pressed by the fact that the students who operatethe projects are guided by a dedicated group ofprofessionals, many of whom lived-in the projects asundergraduates_ who now are paid for their serv-ices. Far from-amateurs. these co-op managers_runstable organizations with large budgets. The-Profes-sional staff. which on big campuses is usually organ-ized into at central body to which all the sepz' trateco-ops belong. offer not only sound ads ice and man-agement techniques. but a _continuity which an-ever-changing student body cannot provide. Natur-ally. in order to raise the necessary funds_ to buy.build or lease a building. proof of continuity and aknowledge of accounting are essential.

In order to become established initially. coop-eratiws usually need support from their patent uni-versity, "The college itself can provide the originalimpetus to bring students together who are inter-ested in establishing a co-op, or at least can providethe student group with a place to-meet and access to

57

a mimeograph machine or a.postage meter.- saidRex Chisholm, a director of the North American-Stu-(ent "Cooperative Organization in the April. 1971.issue of College and University Business, -Later.when the students wish to incorporate legally. thecollege can assist through its attorney. The university planner can be of value in advising the studentson what housing is available for purchase in theimmediate area and the financial responsibilitiesthat will be incurred in purchasing a co-op facility.-

The North American Student Cooperative Or-ganization t NAsco) at Ann Arbor. Michigan, wascreated by a number of the larger co-ops. to assistnew.3potential cooperatives in getting started. Sixhundred co-ops across the country are members ofxAsco. \ ich publishes a biweekly newsletter onthe problems of student cooperatives. A small staffis maintained to advise new organizations on financ-ing. manageinent and operation.

At the-Cniversity of Florida's Gainesville cam-pus, a committee on cooperative housing offers sym-pathetic guidance and advice to campus co-ops. Thecommittee insists on "fiscal responsibility.' but oth-,erwise avoids involvement in the internal manage-ment of the co-op. collegiate Living Organization._which got its start on the campus in the 1930's, has.in the opinion of Carl Opp, head of the off -campushousing section, "enabled large numbers of de4 -ing but financially handicapped students to up

the University.At- Oregon State University where 12 co-op.

58

five privately owned. seven owned by the univer-sity) house 580 _students, the Inter-cooperativeCouncil holds bi-weekly meetings attended byelected representatives from the co-ops and an ad-viser from the Dean of Students offiee.-In this waythe university keeps in close touch with the co-opsbut does not attempt to direct or manage them. -Atschools such as Oregon, where students are leasing _

university-owned property. it is natural to expect,that the university would maintain a keen interestin the status of the co-ops;

Some universities are divesting themselves ofthe unwanted chore of running housing by turningthe responsibility over to student cooperativegroups. The University of Minnesota has signed amanagement- agreement -with the CommonwealthTerrace Cooperative, which agreed to manage a400-unit apartment development for the university.The management agreement was the- solution to adispute between the universitywhich wanted toraise rentsand the tenantsmarried students whowere sure they could run the building efficientlywithout raising rents. The first year has beentermed a success by both factions. and the univer-sity has extended the contract; Student-tenantshave assumed all maintenance chores and all man-agerial chores: in addition students are running aday_ care center for-children of tenants and neigh-bors. The university retains ownership of the build-ings, as well as responsibility for deferred mainte-nance and capital replacement. nun. which holds

outstanding financing on the buildings, approvedthe new contract. fn 1971, Minnesota-received HUDfunds for another apartment complex which, it ishoped, will ultimately be managed by a similar stu-_dent cooperative.

Most of the cooperatives discussed thus farhave been large-scale operations. At small schools.cooperative living is often a simpler proposition, notileir-nnding as much of students in the way of man:agement. At Oberlin College, 5everal,old houses- oncambus have fBeen turned into cooperatives. Thecollege owns the buildings, but students are respon-sible for most maintenance and cooking chores. Inreturn, students pay a lower room and board rate:careful management often earns them a refund atthe end of the-year.

The Oberlin type of cooperative offers studertsvaluable savings as well as another life-style tochooseifrom. Unlike the privately_ owned coopera-tives, hbwever, they do not save the_ college money.since any savings arc passed on to the students. Butthose who espouse the cooperative philosophy-insistthat redUced costs ( to students and to the univer-sity) are-only one of many advantages. A brochureissued by the ICC at the University of Michiganhas this to say about cooperative living: "The coop-eratives understand the basic purpose of residenceto be not shelter, but the promotion of a stimulatingeducational community. This is the spirit of the the-sis developed by historians -of university life thatthe style of living and the casual_ contacts formed at

the university can often influence subsequent ca-reers more than formal courses or curricula. Takingon the responsibility for the work-and decisions re-quired by the physical operations is an education initself. But this is supplemented by living in a com-munity which believes that the acceptance of com-mon responsibility for common problems should bean increasingly frequent answer to social problemstoday. Student cooperatives meet the aspirations ofgrowing numbers of young people to participatein the labor and the decisions which affect them".

The term "cooperative dormitories" is used todescribe a wide variety of living arrangements. Thisvariety-is one of the unheralded advantages of coop-eratives and nonprofit student corporationstheiradministrative structure and the amount of respon-sibility that is assumed by the students can change inresponse to changing student needs. Very recently anew kind of nonprofit dormitory has been added tothe list.

With the growth and prosperity of studenthousing corporations, it was inevitable that privateindustry would step in and attempt to go the stu-dents one better. The Adult Student Housing Cor-poration in Portland,Oregon, is a nonprofit housingcorporation' which in the past three years has putup seven apartment complexes ( at campuses rang-ing from the University of Hawaii to the Universityof Tennessee), all with itt.:D financing. The apart-ments are as economically priced as some coopera-tive apartments-, and yet students are not required

59

to assume any management responsibilities. Housedin two-story, wood-frame, "garden court" buildings.the one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments rentfor 30% below the market price on a month-to-month lease. Richard Ulf, of HUD, admits, don'tknow how they do it, but their buildings cost lessthan any the colleges are able to put up."

According to Fred Bender, a director of the_corporation, there is no secret to -its success. "We.use standard business techniques, we advertise foicompetitive bids, hire local architects and put up

60

apartments that are not plush." Bender thinks thatstudents are "the greatest credit risk in-the world:we've -had few bad debts and low tenant damage."

Adult Student Housing hires resident students( preferably those who are married) to act as on-sitemanagers and maintenance personnel. They aretrained for their jobs and, if they perform well, areoffered a perIpanent position with the companyafter graduation.

The U.S. Office of-Education reports that 21 institu-tions of higher learning closed in 1969-70. The Car-negie Commission of Higher Education warns thatan ever-growing number of colleges and universitiesare headed for financial trouble. noney. as every-one connected with colleges or -universities kliows,a desperate problem: colleges can no longer respondto inflation by raising tuition and board rates with-out running.the risk of limiting their student bodyto the affluent few.

In general, makeshift strategies have been un-dertaken to ease the financial strain. New programshave been postponed and existing programs cur-tailed. Budget juggling and last minute scramblingfor funds arc all too often resorted to. Housing fa-cilities still in the planning stage are frequently con-sidered the most expendable item in the budgetwhen administrators a-,re:caught -between disgrun-tled students and inflated construction costs.

While many colleges recognize that all costs,instruction._ construction. maintenance and se-curityare higher, an increasing number of insti-tutions are underestimating projected deficits. Asurvey of 75',4 of the country's 762 private ac-credited four.Tear colleges showed that the averageinstitution ended its 1968 fiscal year with a $39,000-surplus. The_ situation quickly deteriorated to aJune, 1970, average deficit of $103,000. The best-known colleges with the largest enrollments in theupper Midwest, New- England and. Mid-Atlanticstates are hardest hit. The situation is critical

enough for one college president to characterize hiscolleagties in their search for fiscal solutions as-Kamikaze pilots piloting crash-bound enterprises."

Every indicator, every study warns of the im-pending growth in the college population, Money.then, must be found to build new dormitories (andto refurbish old ones ) so that students can behoused. The alternative is not to build dormsandas a result - -to burden the already overcrowded cities with a new low-income population.Those schools not situated in cities have no choice:they must provide dorms or ceasf, to exist. Thechoice is no longer whether to build, :nit how to findthe money to build.

Residential Space Needs Projections*(in 000's of RI ft)

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

Public universities, 2.; and 4-yearcolleges217,161 228,881 239,91 250,775 260,825 269.895

Private universities, 2 -and 4-year colleges168.338 173.122 177,423 181,194 184.369 186,869

385,499 402,003 417,333 431,960 445,194 436,764

(Estimates are based on each bed requiring 1S0 assign-able sq ft ill practical usage, about 100 sq ft for living-st mlyMg area.)

'Federal Support for Higher Education Construction:Current Programs and Future Needs, HEW, OE, Re-port of the Higher Education Construction ProgramsStudy Grou p, July 10, 1969

61

The Federal GovernmentThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment created the College Housing Program in1950 to assist educational institutions in the con-struction, acquisition and renovation of student andfaculty housing, student. unions, dining halls and-in-firmaries; The program has provided S4 billion inlow-interest long-teem loans; in twenty years, 3200projects have provided housing for _nearly one mil-lion students. HUD offers two kinds of assistancegrants:

Debt Service Grants reduce the interest rateof private market borrowing to 3(-). The _gov-ernment pays all of the interest due on a loanthat exceeds 3%; the college pays only theprincipal plus 3% . Public institutions are re-quired to advertise bond -sales publicly and toreceive- competitive bids. Private institutionsare permitted to negotiate their own tinanding.providing they obtain a loan at the lowest mar-ket rate available. Debt service grants must berepaid within 40 years.

Direct Loans are made to some colleges thatare unable to -borrow from private sources atreasonable rates. Usually, the institution issuesa bond which is purchased by the government.Security for the bond is a pledge of the proj-ect's revenues, augmented as necessary- byrevenue froth -other sources-. The college repaysthe principal plus 37,- interest: payments are

82

made_ in equal installments for the life of theloan (40 years or less).

Government loans are the most advantageousmethod of borrowing money because the lower in-terest rates (35 in contrast to the current commer-cial rate of 95) are passed on to students in theform of lower room rates. since a dormitory is tradi,tionally a self-liquidating, nonprofiCentity.

in 1972, IIUD. had the authority to support$300 million in loans. This $300 million should ac-_

generate $400 million of construction, sincesome schools Match HUD funds with money of theirown. The money was divided among 200 projects.This means, of course, that not all requests forfunds were-granted. Richard Ulf, chief of the CollegeHousing Branch, IIUD, explains that black colleges 7

are -at the:top of the list in competition,- since HUDguidelines give priority to those schools that 1)have the greatest financial need and 2) enroll themost low-income students.

-Until a few years ago, half of all inn) loanswent to private institutions. That ratio has changeddramatically, however. and now only 25(/;. of gov-ernment loans benefit private institutions. Ulf lean.that the percentage will decrease further. reflectingthe malaise of private institutions, many of whichhave suffered a severe drop in enrollment in recentyears. "The government, must continue to supportprivate education in this country.- Ulf asserts. Forthis reason, HUD is willing to supply direct loans to

some schools not financially sound enough to_obtainloans from banks or through-bond issues.

Colleges and universities can no longer counton private investors to put up housing projects onthe edge of the campus. -Scared away by campus un-rest. inflated building costs and the seemingly un-predictable habits of college students. many privatedevelopers are disinterested in the student marketbecause they -cannot make enough profit.

State legislatures are wary of financing dormi-tory construction for many of the same reasons thathave caused private developers to become appre-hensive. There is an additional problem. too. in that

-state legislatures are not eager to supply funds fordormitories that would give students total freedomto determine their-own -life-styles. For both politicaland philosophical reasons. legislators. many ofwhom reflect conservative views, balk at underwrit-ing apartment dormitories for unmarried students.This is one reason why- three - fourths of all studeUtsliving in dormitories Jive in facilities funded withfederally supported loans.

Educational AUthorities-A number of states on the Eastern seaboard haveset up "educational authorities which provide tax-exempt financing to private institutions ( in compli-_ance with the Internal Revenue Service Ruling63 -201. Using its tax-exempt status, an educationalauthority can borrow at a lower interest rate: thissavings can in turn be passed on to the federal goy-

_

emtnent,_ since a debt service loan pays only the in-terest in excess of % on the borrowed amount.

The Pennsylvanfa Higher Educational Facili-ties Authority has raised -fluids for the design andconstruction of dormitories at the University ofPennsylvania. Revenue bonds totalling $36.6 mil-lion- were issued with the approval of the InternalRevenue Service. All the buildings will become theproperty-of the Authority, which will lease them tothe university for 40 years: -after that term theywill become the property of the university. OtherPennsylvania schools are, of course, eligible toapply to the Authority for similar tax-free bonds.State educational institutions, however, already-have a tax - exempt status. Both New York and NewJerserhave similar "authorities."

Although a lot of the financing for -collegehousing collies from the federal government, therest has to be raised through state and privatebonds. notes, _debentures and comthercial mort-gages. These are-channeled, through various privateand quasi-public sources, including cooperativesand state-chartered nonprofit organizations. The re-mainder is supplied by-donations and direct loans; -_

Raising money to build more dormitories haslong been the accepted and -traditional method ofc °Ping with increased enrollment. Now there is analternative solution. Many colleges and universitiesare planning to enlarge their student bodies withoutadding new dormitories by allowing students toearn a bachelor's degree in three years instead of

63

four. Dartmouth, Colgate and Ripon Colleges beganoffering three-year degrees in 1972-73. The Carne-gie Foundation gave support to this trend when itawarded a grant to the State University of NewYork for the development of three-year programs atfour SL NY campuses. If, in the future,-three-year

4

degrees become as commonplace as four-year de-grees are noi'v, it will be one more instance ofthe fact that today, o liege campuses, traditionsat no longer sacred.

For further information on projects described in thispublication, write to the following:,

Student Housing

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITYLeon R. Young

. Director of Residential LifeThe American-UniversityMassachusetts & Nebraska Avenues, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20016

BARD COLLEGE .

William M. AsipBusiness ManagerBard CollegeAnnandale-on-Hudson, N.Y. 12504

BOWIE STATE COLLEGE-Mrs. Ida R. StevensDirector of HousingBowie State CollegeThe InfirmaryBowie, Md. 20715

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIALloyd J. RingAssistant ChancellorUniversity of CaliforniaCentral Services BuildingSanta Cruz, Calif. 95060

THE CLAREMONT COLLEGES13111Woodward --

Campus PlannerThe Claremont Colleges747 N. Dartmouth AvenueClaremont, Calif. 91711

CORNELL UNIVERSITYWilliam P. PaleenDirector of Student HousingCornell UniversityNorth Balch HallIthaca, N.Y, 14850

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARERobed 0. LamisonDirector of Planning & ConstructionUniversity of Delaware224 Hullihen HallNewark, Del. 19711

UNIVERSITY OF DENVERDr. Walter B. ShawDean of Housing ProgramsUniversity of Denver2115 S. University BoulevardDenver, Colo. 80210

FLORIDA _STATE UNIVERSITY_Ira ValentineDirector of HousingFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Fla. 32306

65

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITYSuzanne ForsythDirector of HousingGeorgetown University37th & 0. Streets, N.V.Washington, D.C. 20007

HAMPSHIRE COLLEGEDonald BerthDirector of Development & Public RelationsHampshire CollegeAmherst, Mass. 01002

_UNIVERSITY .OF KANSASJ. J. WilsonDirector of HousingUniversity of Kansas205 Merollurn Hall 1800 Engel RoadLaw: Kan. 66044

KENT STATE UNIVERSITYRena E. SandersDirector, Resident Student ServicesKent State UniversityKent, Ohio 44242_

1

MANKA'I'O S'L'ATE COI EGEC. A. Carko'skiDirector of HousingMankato State College-Box 30, Housing OfficeMankato, Minn. 56001

66

UNIVERSITY OF 'MARYLANDFred AI. Johnson

, Assistant DirectorPhysical Plant DepartmentUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, :1d. 20740

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYHarmon 'hammerDirector of Housing & Dining ServicesM.I.T.-77 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, Mass. 02181

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTSJ. Bruce CochraneDirector of HousingUniversity of Massachusetts235 Whitmore Administration BuildingAmherst, Mass. 01002

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYLyle A. Thorburn, ManagerDormitories & Food ServicesMichigan State UniversityW-185, Holmes HaltEast Lansing, Mich. 48823

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANJohn FeldkampDirector of HousingUniversity of Michigan3011 Student Activities BuildingAnn Arbor, Mich. 48104

STATE OF NEW JERSEYJohn L. Whitlock, DirectorOffice of Facilities Planning & ConstructionState of New Jersey, Department of Higher Education225 \V. State Street Box 1293Trenton, N.J. 08625

STATE UNIVERSITY OF N.Y. AT BROCKPORT'Charles W. LightAssociate Dean of StudentsState University College at BrockportBrockport, N.Y. 14420

ST.\TE UNIVERSITY OF N.Y. AT NEW PALTZChristine Nelsen-HaleyAssistant Director of Housing for AdministrationState University of N.Y.-at New PaltzMain Building 202NeW Paltz, N.Y. 12561

STATE UNIVERSITY OV N.Y. AT STONY BROOKRoger V. PhelpsDirector of University HousingState University of N.Y. at Stony BrookAdministration Building --- Rm. 250Stony Brook, N.Y. 11790

OBERLIN COLLEGECharles J. OakleyDirector of Housing & Dining HallsOberlin CollegeOberlin, Ohio 44074

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITYW. Lynn Jackson, DirectorSingle Student HousingOklahoma State UniversityStudent Union 2nd FloorStillwater. Okla._74074

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITYT. F. AdamsDirector of HousingOregon State UniversityAdministrative Services BuildingCorvallis, Ore. 97331

UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFICStanley A. GreenAssociate Director of HousingUniversity of the PacificStockton, Calif. 95204

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIAE. M. Ledwell, Jr.Director of ResidenceUniversity of Pennsylvania37th & Spruce StreetsPhiladelphia, Pa, 19104

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTMelvin A, Dyson, Vice PresidentBusiness & Financial AffairsUniversity of VermontWaterman BuildingBurlington, Vt. 05401

67

WESTERN WASHINGTON STATE COLLEGEG. W. BrockDirector of HousingWestern Washington State CollegeHigh Street HallBellingham, Wash. 98225

Cooperative Housing

Phil McLennan, DirectorAdult Student Housing Corporation834 S.W. St. Clair StreetPortland, Ore. 97205

Paul D. MerrillGeneral ManagerCommonwealth Terrace Cooperative1295 Gibbs AvenueSt. Paul, Minn. 55108

John,AchatzExecutive SecretaryInter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan3-N Michigan UnionAnn Arbor, Mich. 48104

Paul Eisenberg, PresidentPortland Student Services, Inc.1802 Southwest Tenth AvenuePortland, Ore. 97201

Federal Government

Richard M. Ulf, ChiefCollege Housing BranchDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentFederal Housing AdministrationWashington, D.C. 20411

The following publications are available from EEL,477 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.

RCONDITIONING FOR SCHOOLSCooler schools make better learning environments.(19711. Single copies free. multiple copies $0.25

DESIGN FOR ETVPLANNING FOR SCHOOLSWITH TELEVISIONA report on facilities present and future, needed to ac-commodate instructional television and other new educational programs. Prepared for EFI. by Dave Chapman,Inc.. Industrial Design. *(1960) (Revised 1968) $2.00

THE EARLY LEARNING CENTERA Stamford. Conn.. school built with a modular construc-tion system Provides an ideal environment for early child-hood education. (1970) $0:50

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE ANDARCHITECTURAL CONSEQUENCESA report on school d±.sign that reviews the wide choice ofoptions available to those concern 1 with planning newfacilities or updating old ones. (1968) $2.00

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION /FACILITYRESOURCESIllustrates where and how students learn about the en-vironment of communities and regions using existing anddesigned facilities. (1972) $2.00

FOUND SPACES AND EQUIPMENT FORCHILDREN'S CENTERSIllustrations of premises and low-budget materials in-geniously converted for early educat ion facilities. Bookletlists general code requirenients and information sources.(1972) $2.00

GUIDE To Al:rERNXMES FOR FINANCINGSCHOOL BUILDINGSChart and book explore conventional and unconventionalroutes for financing schoOl construction. Include§ case_histories. (1971) $2.00

HIGH SCHOOLS: THE PROCESS AND THE PLACEA "how to feel about it" as well as a "how to do it" bookabout planning, design. environmental management. andthe behavorial and social influences of school space.(1972) $3.00

THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON THELIBRARY BUILDINGA position paper reporting an Lri. conference on this sub-ject. (1967) $0.50

JOINT OCCUPANCYHow schools can save money by shat.ng sites or buildingswith housing or commerce. (1970) $1.00

TAT TERNS FOR DESIGNINGCHILDREN'S CENTERSA book for people planning to operate children's centers.It summarizes and illustrates all the design issues in.volved in a project. (1971) $2.00

PLACES AND THINGS FOREXPERIMENTAL SCHOOLSReviews every technique known to EEL for improvingthe quality of school buildings and equipment: Foundspace, furniture, community use, reach out schools, etc.Lists hundreds of sources. (1972) 82.00

PLACES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATIONIdentifies-types. of facilities needed to improve environ-

69

mental education. (19711 Single copies free, multiplecopies 50.25

THE SCHOOL LIBRARY:FACILITIES FOR INDEPENDENT STUDYIN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL _

A report on facilities for independent study. with star -k_dards for the size of collections. seating capacity. and thenature of materials to be incorporated. (1963) $1.25

=SCHOOLS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD-Ten examples of new and remodeled facilities for earlychildhood edncation. (19_70) $2.00

SCHOOLS: MORE SPACE/LESS MONEY'Surveys the -alternatives for providing school spaces inthe most economical manner. includes extending scho4year., converting spaces. sharing facilities_ open campus.etc. (1971) $2.00

-SCHOOLS WITHOUT WALLSOpen space and how it works. (1965) S0.50

SYSTEMS: AN APPROACH TOSCHOOL CONSTRUCTIONToronto. Montreal. and Florida projects and how theydeveloped from the SCSI) program. (1971) S2.00_

Systems Reports

The folloWing reports are available from IISIC/gn.300 Sand Hill Road. Menlo Park. Calif. 94025.Checks payable to BSIC/En. California residentsadd 57, sales tax.

BSIC Special Report No. 1:Manufacturer's C6tnpatibility Study. (1971) $1.00

70

BSIC Special Report No. 3:Building Systems Planning Manual. (-1971) SLOO

BSIC Research-Report-No.1: _

K 'M Associates. A Case Study in Systems Building.(1970) $1.00

_4BSIC Research Report No.3:A History and Evaluation of the SCSI) Project. 1961-67.( Wit ) $5.00

Newsletters

BSIC 'EFL NEWSLETTERA periodical recording developments in the systems ap-proach to building educational facilities. Free

COLLEGE NEWSLETTERA periodical on design questions for colleges and univer-sities. Free

NEW LIFE FOR OLD SCHOOLSA periodical of case.studies about renovating existingschool facilities. Free

SCHOOLHOUSEA periodical ,n imancin;.,. planning, and renovating.schools. Free.

Films

These resulting from _E4funded efforts. areavailable for loan or purchase:

TO BUILD A SCHOOLHOUSEA 28-minute color film outlining trends in school design.Available on loan without charge from LEI_ in care of As-

stfciation-Sterling Films, Inc.. Soo Third Avenue. NewYork. N.Y. 10022. anti for purchase at $93.45 from EEL.

ROOM_ TO LEARNA 22-minute color- film on The Early Learning Centerin Stamford. Offinectica. an -upen-play early childhoodschool with facilities and program reflecting some of thebest current thinking. Prepared by The Early LearningCenter under a-grant front Er:. and available on loanwithout charge from Assmiation-Sterling Films. Inc_ SouThird Avenue. New Viol.. NY.10C22. :Intl fur purchase:0125.00 from The Early Learning Center Inc.. I2 Gray

Road, Stamford. Conn. 0o903.

A CHILD-WENT FORTffA 25-minute,color film on inner-city and ghetto schoolsand school building leublems. A1.1-iiable on km withoutcharge from-Modern Talking Picture Service. Inc.. 2323

New Hyde Park Road. New Hyde Park. Long Island.New York 11045 or for purchase at $75 from The Li-brary. American Institute of Architects. 1755 Massachu-setts Avenue. NAY Washington. D.C. 20036. A 4S-minute version is vailabie for purchase from LarryMadison Productions. Inc.. 253 East 49 Street. NewYork. N.Y. 10017.

NEW LEASE ON LEARNINGA 22-minute color film about the conversion of --foundspace into a learning environment for young children.The space. formerly a synagogue. is now the BrooklynBlock School. one of New York City-s few:pu/Aic schoolsfor children aged 3-5.Available from New York _University Film Library. 41Press Annex. Washington Square. New York.NY 10003.rental S7.50. purchase S125.

71

Credits

Photographs by:

Chris Arnokl V_ of C., San Diego Valerie Lucznikowska Opposite p. 36

Joshua A. Burns. Stanford University Madison, Ms.

Feild Rochdale VillageUniversity of Michigan

Opposite p.37 Photojournalists Inc Bowie State College

Johnston Photography University of Maryland Steve van Meter Hampshire College

Nathaniel Lieberman. fester Dick_Photographv U of C. Santa Cruz

TOM A. Watts Itard College

Designed by John :Nforning

Printed by Herst Litho Inc.

72