Housing and Society

ISSN: 0888-2746 (Print) 2376-0923 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhas20

Student Response To Dormitory Buildings

Marjorie Kriebel

To cite this article: Marjorie Kriebel (1980) Student Response To Dormitory Buildings, Housing
and Society, 7:1, 54-66, DOI: 10.1080/08882746.1980.11429845

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08882746.1980.11429845

Published online: 09 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhas20

Download by: [University of Sussex Library] Date: 02 March 2017, At: 14:57
Student Response To
Dormitory Buildings

Marjorie Kriebel

The specifics of how physical elements are incorporated into the design of a dormitory building may
affect the social climate and attitudes of its occupants. In comparing student evaluations of five
dormitory buildings at a medium-size private university in an urban setting, it is seen that design
considerations such as movability offurnishings, shape ofroom , door location, corridor layout, location
ofsharedfacilities , building shape, and orientation ofwindows becomefactors in how occupants respond
to the buildings. Increasing the number of student options makes the environment seen as more
"individualized",. decreasing the options is seen as institutionalized. Offering occupant control over
frequency of contact with others may increase satisfaction with the dormitory.

The architectural characteristics of a dormitory
building may affect the attitudes and social cli-
mate of its occupants. Students' comments on
how they respond to the room shape, furniture,
materials used, etc. show that they see these
building details as symbolic messages of values.
The microcosm of the immediate physical envi-
ronment may contribute to the development of
"dorm cultures" (Sommer, 1969).
Most studies give limited attention to room
shapes, relationship of rooms and facilities to
each other and to the overall building, placement
of room doors, quality of room finishes, or other
physical characteristics of the spaces. They have
considered number of rooms in a "house" or liv-
ing unit, percentage of single rooms, age of build-
ing, inclusion of lounge or recreational facilities
within the building, and relationship of the build-
ing to campus (Moos, 1978). Double-loaded cor-
ridor plans have been evaluated versus suites
(Corbett, 1973; Valins and Baum, 1973), adja-
Marjorie Kriebel is an Assistant Professor with the Design
Department of Nesbitt College, Drexel University.
cency and traffic flow have been considered as
variables in the formation of friendship patterns
(Gerst and Sweetwood, 1973) and some attention
has been paid to room flexibility in terms of fixed
versus more movable furniture (High and
Sundstrom, 1977). The majority of these studies
address what should be incorporated in a dormit-
ory but not the effects of how it is incorporated.
This study looks at a variety of physical elements
and their possible contributions to the develop-
ment of an ambience as seen and interpreted by
the students. While the personalities of the oc-
cupants, administrative decisions of population
mix, and economic differences of room cost are
variables in establishing a dorm's culture, the
physical form may also have a pervasive relation-
ship to the social climate, and all variables must be
seen as interrelating.
Methodology
An awareness that students sense a difference
between dormitories and in some cases, between
room types within a dormitory occurred indirectly
through assignments in a History of Modern Ar-

54 Housing and Society Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)

chitecture course. With the intent of making the
students more conscious of how they interact with
their environments, they were required to select
anyone space on campus, describe their re-
sponses to the space, and relate their responses to
the physical components of the space. A sub-
sequent assignment in the course was a similar
analysis of an entire building, not necessarily on
campus. Dormitory rooms and dormitory build-
ings were frequently chosen by the students as
subjects for one or both assignments.
Since 1974 an estimated 110 papers on dormi-
tory spaces have been received from 415 students
For the purpose of the course, records were kept
on the topics of the building analyses; 45 papers
were received on dormitory buildings. Less com-
plete records are available on the single space
topics. Of217 recorded papers, 35 were on rooms
in a dormitory; it is estimated that an additional 30
papers on dormitory rooms were also received
(see Table 1 for distribution of recorded papers).
Unfortunately, copies were not kept of the pap-

TABLE 1 - Comparative Statistics

Dorm A Dorm B Dorm C Dorm D Dorm E

Date of Construction 1932 1966 1972 1978 1977

Original Use women's men's women's co-ed
dorm dorm dorm dorm hospital
Students Housed 236 420 377 398 43
Floors 12 12 8 3 3
Floors Housing Students 10 10 7 3 3
Rooms/Floor* 15 21 27 76 7
Students/Floor** 26 42 54 152 15
StudentsI' ,House" 26 42 27 23/26/28 43
Kitchen per floor floor house house building
Laundry per 2 floors building house 2/floor building
Cost per Student $325 $350 $350 $365 $350
$375/loft
% Freshmen 50.4 53.1 52.8 34.7 9.3***
% Upperclassmen 49.2 46.9 47.2 65.1 72.1
% Graduates 0.4 0 0 0.3 18.6
% Men 72.0 61.0 52.3 61.6 65.1
% Women 28.0 39.0 47.7 38.4 34.9
Dorm analyses recorded 1 0 43 1 0
Room analysis recorded 6 11 7 10 1

All statistics, including costs, reflect Winter Term 1978-79.

*Floors used as typical:

Dorm A -3,4,5,6
Dorm B -2,3,4,5,7,8
Dorm C -2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Dorm D -2,3
Dorm E-2

**Typically rooms are doubles but resident advisors and tutors

have single occupancy rooms and some singles are availa-
ble in Dorm A and Dorm E. Triples and one quad also occur
in Dorm E. Some lounges in Dorms A, B, and C currently are
used to house students.

***Transfer students with Freshman academic standing.

Vol. 7, No.1 (1980) Housing and Society 55

ers until very recently. Only ten building and four
room analyses were available for the direct quo-
tations included below to illustrate student at-
titudes.
Dorm Descriptions And Student Comments
Five dormitories at a medium-size private uni-
versity in an urban setting offer an opportunity to
observe students' responses to the built form and
to see reflections of historical changes in attitudes
toward dormitory life. Although the dormitories
were built for differing programs, the current
nominal use of them is now the same: coed living
with men and women separated by floor or house.
The typical form unit in all buildings is a double
room. Toilet facilities are, in most instances,
shared with other residents of the house and
kitchen facilities are available for student use.
Three of the buildings are high rise, two are only
three stories high. Two are older buildings, three
are newer. There is limited choice in the type of
housing since most rooms are double occupancy,
but there is a range of character in the spaces from
which to select.
University regulations require that freshmen
who do not live with parents or guardians must
reside on campus. Upperclassmen are not re-
quired to live on campus. Freshmen, transferees
and graduate students residing on campus for the
first time are assigned accommodations in order
of application, on a space available basis, honor-
ing preference whenever possible. Subsequent
room assignments are student-selected in a prefe-
rential order system based on the student's Room
Selection Priority Number, which indicates the
student's relative standing for reserving a specific
room.
Table 1 shows statistical comparisons among
the five buildings, but individual analysis of each
building is essential to an understanding of their
differing characters.
Dorm A
The oldest of the dormitory buildings is Dorm A
(Figure 1). It was constructed as a women's dor-
mitory, to stand, with dignity, in loco parentis. Its
56 Housing and Society
dominant feature, and the space most frequently
described by students, is a two-storied, balconied
living room with a formality that symbolizes the
controlled social environment of the female stu-
dent in the 1930's, and on many campuses, until
the 1960's. Originally, a pantry adjacent to the
living room graciously served during ~ ~ white
glove" teas. Now the living room is unevenly
used, mostly for study in the evening. But any
suggestion that the space be used differently or
modified is met by student resistence. It is a
"loved" anachronism: "Maybe we feel uncom-
fortable, as if an unseen maiden aunt is watching
our movements and actions. If this be so, then
keep watch, my aunt and preserve these
places - our appreciation will yet swing back in
your favor. " Originally the building was designed
to be a self-contained entity, with dining room and
kitchen on ground level, reception room next to
the front desk, and a complete infirmary on the
top floor. Today the kitchen and dining room are
unused, the reception room houses bicycles, and
the infirmary has become student rooms, but the
living room alone is sufficiently dominant to be
able to establish and maintain a character for the
entire dormitory.
The resident floors are comparatively small,
housing from ten to twenty-six students per floor.
The variety of room sizes and shapes and the
diversity of floor layouts give the residents a
greater sense of choice although some of the
irregular-shaped rooms are seen to pose difficul-
ties in furniture arrangement. All furniture is
movable. There is a wash-basin in each room and
the rooms which previously constituted the infir-
mary have private or semi-private bathrooms.
Each floor has a kitchen and lounge. These factors
combine to give an intimate' 'homelike" feeling to
the dormitory although the age of the building is
perceived as a negative factor. Because of its age,
Dorm A's rooms are the least expensive and at-
tract a clique, which further reinforces an internal
"sociable" atmosphere. In the current year there
were several floors assigned to freshmen males
only and some of the floor lounges were used as
student rooms. These allocations have apparently
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
made the dorm seem less "quiet" than in previous
years. Next year the administration will discon-
tinue the present policy of freshmen grouping in
favor of alternate freshmen/non-freshmen room
assignments on most floors.
5 El
e the bed and desk chair are fixed in place and
FIGURE 1 - Dorm A
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
DormB
Dorm B (Figure 2) is the prototypical
dormitory - a double-loaded corridor of almost
identical two-person rooms with central, shared
toilet facilities. Built as a men's dorm, its ground
floor and basement contain lounge and recrea-
tional spaces as well as the Residential Living
Office. This is the most "institutional" of the
dorms and the least liked; it is filled last in the
preferential selection. Hallways are long,
straight, and narrow, with painted concrete block
walls and carpeted floors. Doors are located
symmetrically opposite each other.
There are two-story high lounges, opposite the
elevators, centrally located in the long hallway,
which serve to connect every two floors. These
balconied rooms with spiral stairs offered
panoramic views of the city from the upper floors
and were the only relief elements in the building.
In 1975 they were described as having the
"popular effect ofbringing together a whole lot of
students who are anxious to meet ,other young
people", and the social life of Dorm B's residents
was described as "better than in the other Halls. "
This feature has since been eliminated as the
lounges are currently being used as student rooms
and now Dorm B is seen as the least desirable of
the dorms. Statistically the population is not much
different from Dorm A or Dorm C, but Dorm B is
viewed as "the Freshmen dorm."
The double-occupancy rooms (Figure 6) have
painted concrete block walls and vinyl tile floors.
Their long, narrow dimensions make furnishing
particularly difficult. All of the furniture except
arranged symmetrically about the room's long
axis. The door, window and air handling unit are
also centered. Options for personalizing are seen
as minimal. In 1975 a student in a Housing Semi-
nar course developed a proposal for modular fur-
nishings which could offer "living variations" to
match the students' variety of uses. "Each stu-
dent studies and socializes in different ways.
Some students want a large desk surface and
privacy to study, but some prefer to study
elsewhere and want space to socialize within their
Housing and Society 57
room. Some like 10 section off the room into a
separ.:tes(>c'QI·space and ,tudy-sleep drea Qn4:::.
some :are stJtisj_d to jllst ·iecvet"e room as is.. ·:
Some a,utlent, iike to keep cllangin, 'hei, room
all tle'ime"(Me,er,' 1:"S). •e ·1"·8" ceiiq
lleiBht._:.ee~'some :smdeats·· to :coDsider
the pes:smla,.:.n:stnletiqasleepiq left and
even.lleD· this wasfe,hiddeo: some: were built.
9

But ...emBy .ery little ~teatiODS have been

made &8. daese· basieall¥ stereet)fped rooms. The
sUlle.aieD efmovable.:famiture has beeDmeerpo-
rate<l::iu: Berm·D.
In colljoDcoon widta· stud, for Educational
Facil:idesLa1KJ.18tories, in lfi3 a senior Interior
Desip:lmclioelas:s was 8i¥eD dleusipmeDt: of
propes:iqo_ps tOlUIJ efdaedormitery spaces
on cam,us::.· One:teamellose Berm It, proposm,
reorpm_tioDeftbe double rooms into ·suites,
minimiziq··dle :D umber of corridor doors _d,
hopeilJlly, NSlnlcmriDldle social relMio.ships.
Suites andapanment arraa,eme:Dts were par-
ticularl, ,.pulariu·dle·late • •':1· ~ci:earlJ 1978' s
(VanderR,D aDd liJ\lierslem, 1_7>8Dd·altho.
Dorm Cwas Niq.desipedd'lilriBg tis period,
there' is DOt .dermiteryoD:lle campus: based en tially satisfted, how8¥er,wl1eakitcllens were
this coneept. a. proposed ellaaBes were not wedged into former laundry spaces 08 each floor
considered.·forimple:meDta~oBin·BermD.. A sec- and the floor laundry facilities were relocated to a
ond proposal of mcorporatiq floef' kitchens adja- gang-facility in the basement.
cent to aad CODBeete4'l with the loUDPs was par-
DormC
Still reprded as new, Dorm. C (Figure 3) is
well-liked and it filled rnt in last sprina's prefe-
rential selection: "I definitely like (Dorm C) visu-
ally and would cnooseitover the other residential
spaces provided," "probably.the most popular
dormitory at Drexel.. " But it is also considered as
the most" quiet.. " Its sbapeis the major cause for
both comments. The larJe, cDr\ledfroat is per-
e,ived as a strOllS, vis. ·statemeDt invitiq the
observer into botb the cOBwoed fereeourt and the
building itself. The slape is. "tli/lerent," and im-
plies ' 'informality iI p:laY!IlI"ess," ,tope n-
.. ..

ness," "sunlight and air." ae semi-circular

shape is positively responded to as "protective,"
sip.ifying "our protection/rom the outside world
DormS while at school.. " Both Dorms A andC were de-

58 Housing and Society Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)

signed as women's dormitories and both are felt to
have a protective nature, although the force which
contributes to that response differs. The feeling of
protection at Dorm C is caused by the curved form
and not by any social atmosphere or administra-
tive decision.
If externally the curve extends an invitation, it
has the opposite effect internally. "The problem
with the curve of the building is only apparent
from within, and then only from the people living
there." It creates an "alienation between the in-
habitants of each wing." Unlike Dorm B's more
standard, central double-loaded corridor where
all doors open into an elongated meeting place and
there is clear (if "tunnel") vision of all doorways
from one end of the building to the other, the
curvature of Dorm Chides the corridor's ends and
makes each doorway more separated and private.
Doors at Dorm C are not typically located oppo-
site each other as at Dorm B. Activity is centered
in the rooms rather than in the corridors and car-
peting in the corridor reduces what noise may be
generated. Before occupancy, the program of the
dorm was changed from all women to coeduca-
tional, kitchens were provided on each floor, and
fire doors were incorporated to satisfy code re-
quirements. The inclusion of the fire doors, which
isolate the elevator lobby, effectively cut the floor
into two halves or wings. This separation is rein-
forced by the location of shared facilities of
kitchen, bathroom, and laundry, together with
fire stairs, at the extreme ends of the hallways
rather than centrally as at Dorms B or A. The floor
lounge at the elevator lobby is used more fre-
quently for study than for socializing, and the
student rooms which open off the elevator lobby
are isolated. The physical and acoustical separa-
tion becomes a social one: "Very seldom does one
side socialize with the other." Unlike Dorm A and
B, where men and women are separated by floor,
at Dorm C they are separated by building wing or
"house," but the segregation is just as definitive.
The form's internal message of private is en-
hanced by the room design (Figure 6). The major-
ity of the furniture is fixed and creates a division of
the total room into two parts - a study/dressing
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
section next to the corridor and a sleeping/
entertaining section at the large window. Most
students apparently like this forced separation
and there are few complaints about the inability to
rearrange the furniture (the only real choice is
whether to bunk the beds or not). This separation
is seen as "very important". The possibility for
one roommate to sleep while the other studies,
whether this may actually occur or not, is per-
ceived by the students as increasing their choices
and the control over their space. This perceived
option may make them willing to relinquish the
possibility of rearranging furniture.
Nominally all the rooms are the same, but oc-
cupants quickly distinguish between "inside" or
''front'' rooms and "outside" or "back" rooms.
Again the building's shape has ramifications for
those living inside it. The" inside" rooms which
line the circle are sociopetal, or people-uniting,
rooms (Osmund, 1959). The separation felt in the
hall's configuation is now reversed as a positive
/negative, object/ground relationship reversal.
The hallway doors which opened away from each
other are replaced by windows which face each
other. An occupant of an "inside" room can "see
everyone going in or out . .. and know what's
going on." He/she can also see, and be seen by,
occupants of the other inside rooms. The form of
the curve is excellent for both visual and verbal
"across the court" conversations. Although
some respond that there is no privacy in the center
circle, most prefer the inside rooms to the outside
ones. The sense of community which is absent in
the hallways is created by the windows which all
focus to the center - centripetal becomes
sociopetal.
While the view from the inside rooms is into all
the other inside rooms, the view from the outside
rooms is overlooking" different places on cam-
pus". The outside rooms are the sociofugal
counterparts of the inside rooms. Outside rooms
are rectangular, rather than wedge-shaped as are
the inside rooms. Students perceive the outside
rooms as larger, more open, "an illusion of more
space", due to the difference in furniture ar-
rangement (Figure 6), although they contain less
Housing and Society 59
square footage than the inside rooms. The fact
that one of the frequently stated "advantages" of
the outside rooms is their "good television recep-
tion" may suggest either that television is a do-
minant factor in the students' lives or that the
outside rooms are seen to be without any major
favorable attributes. They have the same white
painted concrete block walls and anonymous gray
tile as the inside rooms, but the absence of unique
shape and the less distinct separation of study
from sleeping area make them perceived as a less
strong, architectural statement and hence less in-
dividual and more institutional.
DormD
Dorm D (Figure 4) opened in September 1978.
Unlike Dorms A, B, and C, it is not a high-rise but
only three stories in height. Student rooms are on
all three floors; reception, recreation room and a
large tutoring room are also on the ground floor.
(Some concern has been expressed by the stu-
o 10
FIGURE 3 - Dorm C I I
60 Housing and Society
dents in regard to privacy and security in the
ground floor student rooms, although there have
been no reported incidents.) The dorm is or-
ganized into" houses" of twenty-three to
twenty-eight students in double-occupancy
rooms. The overall building form creates a central
court with extended wings which reduce the ex-
ternal scale of the building and, together with the
low height, make it more" residential" . The non-
rectangular shape helps reinforce the house divi-
sions in the case of those in the wings, but the
central houses are less discernible and depend on
firedoors and color coding of room doors for def-
inition. In the apparent effort of "jogging" hall-
ways to reduce their visual length, the resultant
complicated corridor system becomes a diso-
rienting labyrinth to the visitor.
House lounges are located at the "knuckle"
where corridors turn at right angles; bathrooms
and stairs are in this immediate area. In some
houses the bathroom door is visible from the
L Lounge
K Kitchen
B Bath
S Stair
E Elevator
50 100
I I
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)

DormC
house lounge, in others it is not. In all houses the
kitchen is accessed from the lounge and this
proximity may encourage a more social use of the
lounge. Furnishings in the lounge include both
table seating and lounge chairs. Many students
cook meals in the dorms, especially since food
service is not available on the weekends and a
weekly bus to a supermarket is provided by the
University.
The students are generally pleased with the
double-occupancy rooms. They see them as
"warm" and less institutional than rooms in the
other dorms: "I feel good about it," HI would
have a diffICult time living in the other dorms after
living here. " They feel that the decision to have all
the fumiture movable gives them a chance to per-
sonalize the space: 'tThe furniture can be ar-
ranged to the taste ofthe student)' - "Being able to
arrange the furniture the way you wanted it made
you feel as if you were in your own room, n Hmos t
importantly, I am a part ofit. " Material selections
are seen as reinforcing tbe " homey" or residential
quality: thetloor is carpeted in the.rooms as well
as the hall ("the one accessory I would prefer
before all others")," drywall is used for two or
three oftbe wa.lls in each room, reducing the ex-
tent ofCODcrete block walls; all furniture is solid
oak; and there is a bay window in each room (t'it
gives the space a little sophistication"'). There are
complaints that there is inadequate provision for
storage (closets are not tall enough for a long coat
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
or dress, the bureaus get 'tquite overcrowded
even with a small amount of clothing", and the
desks are ''just a bit too small" ,thedrywaUparti..
tions offer poor soundproofina and invite putting a
fISt through them, and the walls do not accommo-
date attaching "things'" to them.
The limited duration of occupancy does not
permit any longitudinal evaluation of the student
response at present. While nominally the rooms
are all identical, there are at least three different
room types. Those on the court which face inward
toward each other may be seen to have a different
character than those on the external wings, much
as the inside and outside rooms at Dorm C are
seen to differ. On the third floor all but eight of the
rooms are "lofts", having a slanted ceiling under
the sloping roof. These are the most desired
rooms and the most expensive. Reserved for up-
perclassmen, they carry a prestige and it bas been
commented tbat occupants of Dorm D are "better
dressers and drive better cars . "
DormE
There is one other dormitory option - an un-
usual alternative (Figure 5). The University is ex-
periencing an increased enrollment and while
Dorm D was under construction an unoccupied
hospital owned by the University was used as a
stop-gap housing annex . Minimal modifications in
the form of paint and furniture were made since
only one year of use was anticipated; no major
alterations were done. The opening of Dorm D has
not, however,eased the demand totally, and the
hospital continues to be used as bousing.
The building is three stories high with student
rooms on all floors and a kitcben and lounge on the
ground floor. It bas an irregular shape and no two
student rooms are alike.. There are five single
rooms, six doubles, seven triples, and one qual-
ruple. The rooms range in size from a 105 square
foot single to the 510 square foot (plus private bath
and halfbatb) quad. The median size is 326 sq. ft.;
the mean is·309 SQ.. ft.. Three rooms have private
half baths, two share a full bath, and the :quad bas
not only a private bath and half bath but incorpo-
rates a study·solarium. Four other "rooms'" are
Housing and Society 61
 DormD

actually suites of two or more rooms.

Physically, Dorm E is considered the least de-
sirable. Its previous use as an oncologic hospital is
obvious to those living in the former operating
room and macabre jokes discuss the location of
the morgue. Until recently roof leaks restricted
the number of third floor rooms that could be
occupied, and heating and hot water are unde-
pendable.
Students are assigned to Dorm E only as de-
mand requires; they are almost all transfers and
graduate students. Assignment is by population
type: male graduate students on the fIrst floor,
female transfer students on the second, and male
undergraduate transfer students on the third. As-
signment is often received with distress: '''I was
devastated." But curiously Dorm E feels like a
large house and its occupants sense a camaraderie
that may be further increased by the shared ad-
versities of the make-shift conditions. There is a
sense of identity that may be created by several
factors.. The building is small and it has never been
fully occupied; typical occupancy ranges from
thirty to forty. Dispersed rather than centralized
bath and toilet facilities allow a higher degree of
control as do the suite-study areas and single
rooms. Sharing is required less frequently with
o 10 50 100 fewer people in these "personal areas" and the
I I I I I
ability to have relative privacy when one wishes
I
to elect it strengthens the willingness to share in
FIGURE 4 - Dorm D the public kitchenllounge spaces (Altman, 1975).

62 Housing and Society Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)

Unlike the other dormitories, which have floor or
house kitchens, Dorm E has only one kitchen
which all students may use. Although the
student/kitchen ratio is greater than in the other
Dorms except for Dorm B, the large size of the
kitchen at Dorm E encourages simultaneous use
by several students, while the more restricted
areas in the other dorms discourage it. The lounge
area in Dorm E is adjacent to and visually con-
nected with the kitchen, further encouraging in-
teraction.
Individual rooms may be bright with new paint
but still are" basically cold." What they offer is
not a positive material reference, but more area
and variety than rooms in the other Dorms. Stu-
dents who complain to Residential Living about
their assignment to Dorm E often return within
two weeks pleased: "[ opened my eyes to new
possibilities . .. [can now call my section of the
triple room and my whole room home."
Observations
The students' responses to their dorm spaces
are influenced by many factors which include
room configuration and furniture configuration,
whether movable or fixed, as well as building
configuration and orientation and their particular
location in it. How the students see and respond to
these relationships should be considerations in
designing. The decision to incorporate lounges
and kitchens should not be considered without
also being aware of the effect that location of
those facilities in relationship to the users and to
other facilities has.
FIGURE 5 - Dorm E
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
DormE
In the configuration of the student rooms there
are two design attitudes visible. One is to attempt
to create equality for the occupants. Usually this
attempt takes the form of symmetry and the
nominally symmetrical plan does have the ad-
vantage of clearly defining territory for each oc-
cupant (and of simplicity on the part of the de-
signer). When the symmetry has been established
through use of fixed furniture as it has been done
in Dorms Band C, it also has the effect of reduc-
ing student options and sense of control over the
space and possibly reduces contentment with the
space.
The other attitude is to provide flexibility of
student options (which is harder from the de-
signer's standpoint). However, in Dorms A and
D, there is no way in which those options can
include symmetry and the creation of two identi-
cal areas - the spaces for each student must be
different. In Dorm A the location of the closet
doors and wash basin do not permit a symmetrical
arrangement. In Dorm D, the room at first appears
to be symmetrical, but the door location precludes
any symmetry. While in theory the students may
have total flexibility, the clearly equal, symmetri-
cal space is not possible. There will be a "differ-
entness" to each person's space within the room
which could reinforce the sense of personalizing
the space, but may encourage one student to feel
Housing and Society 63
that the other one has the "better deal." Door
locations can make a difference.
Some of the data might be interpreted as a re-
sponse to the newness of the building, irrespec-
tive of the design. But simultaneously the degree
of student control in terms of fixed versus mova-
ble furniture has increased with the newness of
the building from Dorm B to Dorm C to Dorm D,
and may be a variable that is producing parallel
responses with newness. The two older dorms, A
and E, while having many disadvantages, are also
seen to have more options for students' control
and are liked by some of their occupants, rather
than categorically disliked because they are
"old".
There appears to be some relationship between
whether rooms are labeled" homey" or "institu-
tional" with the degree of personal control felt
and the sense of identity with materials seen as
"residential": smooth-finshed walls as opposed
to painted concrete block walls, carpeting rather
than vinyl tile floors, wood not metal furniture,
movable furniture rather than fixed.
Personal control is seen not only in the ability to
arrange and rearrange furniture, but also in the
options to include or exclude others from your
space or vision. It is the choice to mix with others
and to be alone. Complaints with Dorm B are that
one must too often be with others; in Dorm C the
complaint is that people are isolated.
The plan relationships will not necessarily
override social choices, but where a door is placed
or how close the kitchen is to the lounge can be an
encouragement or discouragement. The designer
must pay attention to all the elements of the im-
mediate environment.
Design Guidelines
In planning dormitory space, the designer and
the administration must consider the desired am-
bience of the dorm and the anticipated degree of
interaction among the occupants. Design deci-
sions should be considered along a continuum
from those perceived as "institutional" or de-
creasing student options to those perceived as
"residential" or increasing student options.
64 Housing and Society
A. Balance design choices to convey desired de-
gree of instututional or student control.
1. Fixed furniture offers less student choice than
movable furniture.
2. A symmetrical room arrangement is consi-
dered more institutional than an asymmetrical
arrangement.
3. Rectangular spaces are perceived as offering
less student options than irregular shaped
spaces.
4. Strong or unique architectural statements may
be seen as more individualized and less in-
stitutional.
5. Painted concrete block walls, vinyl asbestos
tile floors and metal furniture are seen as in-
stitutional; drywall partitions, carpeted floors,
wood and upholstered furniture are associated
with residential.
B. Permit occupant choice over frequency (~f
contact l1 ith others.
J
1. Provide the possibility of single-occupancy
space. This can be a subdivision within a
shared room.
2. A lounge for group interaction can help main-
tain control of the individual's room.
3. Centralizing facilities (toilet/bath, kitchen/
lounge, and stairs/elevators) increases contact
possibilities.
4. Dispersion of facilities decreases contact pos-
sibilities.
5. When frequency of contact can be controlled
in personal spaces (sleeping, study, bathing),
greater frequency of contact may be accepted
in public spaces (lounge, kitchen, stairs,
elevators) .
6. Angled or curved hallways reduce visual con-
tact but may be disorienting.
7. Number of doors visible at one time affect
contact.
8. Doors opposite each other encourage more
contact than a staggered door layout.
9. Consider views from windows for extent of
visual contact with other rooms, pathways,
courtyards, etc.
Vol. 7, No. / (/980)
 r - ------
,L
I
_

r--
I
,
I
I
I
I

DORM A DORM B
'7~'Z'1)( 1I~'2." 191 SQ FT 17'-5")(. lO'-7'" le4 SQ FT
+ CLO~I!.T5

DOR M C "INSloe- ROOM DORM C 1l0 UTSloe" RooM

15~O"X'4'-211 207 SQ FT 15'-QIC )( 1'2'.. 2 11 lq I 54' FT

r------
I
IL- -
I
I
I
1
,
I
__ ..J

r--------, r-------.,
I I
1 I
I I I 'I

DORM D DORM E
t<D'-i" x ll~ Bit '93 SQ F=T 23'~3")( 14'-3" 315 SQ FT

FIGURE 6 - Typical Rooms

Vol. 7, No.1 (1980) Housing and Society 65

 References
Altman, I., 1975. The Environment and Social
Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory,
Crowding, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Corbett, J., 1973. "Are Suites the Answer?" En-
vironment and Behavior, Vol. 5, No.4.
Gerst, M. and Sweetwood, H., 1973. "Correlates
of Dormitory Social Climate," Environment
and Behavior, Vol. 5, No.4.
High, T. and Sundstrom, E., 1977. "Room Flexi-
bility and Space Use in a Dormitory," Envi-
ronment and Behavior, Vol. 9, No.1.
Meyer, A., 1975. "Living Variations." Perspec-
tive, Vol. 6, No.1.
Moos, R., 1978, "Social Environments of Uni-
versity Student Living Groups: Architectural
66 Housing and Society
and Organizational Correlates." Environment
and Behavior, Vol. 10, No.1.
Osmund, H., 1959. "The Relationship Between
Architect and Psychiatrist." Goshen, C., ed.
Psychiatric Architecture, Washington: Ameri-
can Psychiatric Association.
Sommer, R., 1969. Personal Space: The Be-
havioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Valins, S. and Bauffi, A., 1973. "Residential
Group Size, Social Interaction and Crowding."
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 5, No.4.
Van der Ryn, S. and Silverstein, M., 1967. Dorms
at Berkeley: An Environmental Analysis. Ber-
keley, CA: Center for Planning and Develop-
ment Research.
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)