Talking Stick - November/December 2015 - 65

outcomes. John Jeffery, assistant vice
president for campus life at Saint
Joseph's University in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, recalls, "Recently, while
working with the architects on a new
residence hall for first-year students,
there was some uncertainty as to the
building design and layout. From my
experience as a student affairs and
housing professional, my preference
was to go with a more traditional
design, double occupancy corridor style,
which for many years has been a tried
and true design standard for first-year
students. However, the architects on
the project had differing opinions; to
them traditional was outdated, and
they wanted more modern design
with amenities that maximized the
utility and function of the building,
the design of which included private
bathrooms and kitchenettes. There
was merit and value in both designs.
Unfortunately, there was little
research or data regarding the impact
of building design on social and
community outcomes, so, like many
others in the same position, we went
with our gut and selected the design
we thought was better, without any
real data to back up the decision." Void
of sufficient evidence linking design to
student experiences, housing officers
must make design decisions based
on intuition rather than on empirical
findings.
And while, undoubtedly,
many housing officers are able to
convincingly articulate, without the
support of the literature, that assigning
incoming freshmen to an apartmentstyle hall will likely not yield the sense
of camaraderie most desired in a
first-year environment, can they speak
with similar conviction about the type
of student outcomes that would be
most actualized by suite-style housing
in comparison to traditional doubleloaded corridor halls? The answer to
this question seems not so obvious.
The relationship between architectural
design and specific student experience
outcomes remains relatively unknown.

It is also important to note that not
only will connecting building design
with student experience inform better
design decisions but it also helps
housing professionals strengthen their
voices in the design process. Currently,
chief housing officers report that they
and their staff are most involved in
decisions regarding move-in logistics
and facility use. They also assist in
creating a vision and goals for a new
project and conduct post-occupancy
evaluations. However, they report
that they are the least involved in
financial discussions with regard to
the design process. This is somewhat
understandable, as campuses do
employ financial officers for that work.
However, it is also alarming because,
if the housing officers are not involved
and not able to have their voice heard
in business-centered decisions made
early in the planning process, they
are likely to be ineffective agents of
change when value-based engineering
threatens student-centered design
decisions.
The question remains as to
whether housing professionals have
all the tools necessary to effectively
advocate for building design by
understanding the whole process,
articulating their ideas in an
organized and convincing manner,
and employing data to support their
position. Housing officers are often
called to serve as interpreters. They
provide credibility and advocacy
for what is important to students
in a language common to upper
administration and decision makers.
As important participants in all stages
of the design-build conversation, they
are provided an opportunity to fill
the knowledge and experience gap
between administrators, the general
contractor, and students, allowing
for a developed vision of advocacy
for student-centered outcomes. With
further research and data, housing
officers will be able to present
themselves as competent stakeholders
from inception to completion of the

project and help ensure that student
outcomes and alignment with
development goals are actualized.
More extensive research on
understanding student ownership
and territoriality of space will allow
housing professionals to design
halls that maximize a sense of
belonging and inclusivity while
remaining committed to celebrating
individualism. Such a legacy should
be a desirable outcome not only for
today's college student, but also for the
future growth of higher education. 

Chris Heasley is the executive director of
university housing, Drexel Business Services,
Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 clh344@drexel.edu
Frances Watson Lengowski is an associate at
VMDO Architects in Charlottesville, Virginia.
 lengowski@vmdo.com
Kurt Haapala is a principal at Mahlum
Architects Inc. in Portland, Oregon.
 khaapala@MAHLUM.com
Norbert W. Dunkel is the associate vice
president for student affairs at the University
of Gainesville in Florida.
 NorbD@ufsa.ufl.edu

NOVEMBER + DECEMBER 2015

65
Talking Stick - November/December 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - November/December 2015
