University Living Spaces: Addressing New Student Needs

The intrinsic concept of student accommodation is closely intertwined with the historical backdrop and development of academic institutions, as well as the evolving organization and dynamics of society, alongside the evolution of architectural expression through various epochs and manifestations. The university, serving as an essential pillar for social and cultural enrichment in the locality it resides, also represents a considerable source of material prosperity. Colleges, originally conceived to provide shelter and support to less affluent students, harmoniously integrated into the urban and architectural fabric, marking the initial tangible signs of the incorporation of university institutions within cities. Initially, these structures took shape through the adaptation of existing buildings, later evolving into new construction interventions. While varying in specific details and types that have emerged over time, these institutions tended to develop around one or more internal courtyards, distinctly delineating areas of public character from private ones. This spatial distinction and organization remain a fundamental characteristic of the analyzed typology. The intrinsic connection between the urban core and the university has persisted and rooted over time, although the 20th century witnessed a gradual shift towards urban expansion zones. This evolution aimed to integrate peripheral spaces, giving rise to true university cities. This decision paved the way for a transformation in the image of portions of the city that were previously confined to urban and social margins, orienting towards a concept of redevelopment that continues to engage research stakeholders in the pursuit of innovative solutions. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in interventions aimed at creating temporary residences for students, driven by the goal of reducing regulatory detachment from the European Union. This demand is closely linked to the exponential growth of the student population, influenced by factors such as easier access to degree courses, the relocation of university campuses from major to minor centers, and the expansion of educational offerings. This, with a more precise delineation of roles, contributes to the growing internationalization of students, faculty, and researchers. Student housing is a socially oriented typology, intrinsically linked to collective functions and services, driven by a growing demand for education, increased student mobility, extended duration, and diversification of educational levels, as well as the need to provide affordable housing services.

In the European context, the increased relocation of university facilities in Italian cities, while favoring local students, inevitably necessitates the need for new housing solutions for those choosing to move from one city to another. The implementation of a suitable housing offer not only ensures greater freedom of choice but also a more conscious and less conditioned decision. On average, residing in student accommodations emerges as the least expensive solution among all housing types, except for living with parents. In addition to the economic benefits, living in a university residence leads to additional advantages, such as greater integration and orientation for students, particularly crucial during the first academic year when students might feel lost in the vast dimensions of large cities and/or universities. With increasing prominence, student housing is included among the so-called new forms of residence, not so much because it constitutes an unusual housing modality but rather because its residential function increasingly reflects the intrinsic innovation in the lifestyle of young students, beyond the usual domestic confines and parental control. The residential dimension plays a significant role from an educational and formal perspective, serving as a means of maturation both humanly and culturally. It acts as a tool that “compels” the experience of communal living, interaction with peers, assumption of responsibilities and commitments, as well as the need to establish rules of coexistence. The place hosting residential activities becomes a reference point, a space of legitimate appropriation, as students use it, adapt it to their needs, and personalize it according to their experiences. Collective residence emerges as a fundamental mediator in the relationship between the recently relocated student, the new city, and the surrounding territory, playing a crucial role in facilitating the young individual’s integration into the new environment. The daily routine of a university residence sharply differs from that of sublet rooms; living on campuses not only encourages but actively promotes the use of communal areas, and available facilities, fostering socialization and the sharing of spaces and ideas. Moreover, the student residence has taken on connotations of temporality, representing a limited and circumscribed dimension not tied to the temporality of architectural construction but rather to a temporariness of use. In Italy, and much of Europe, housing is traditionally considered a permanent immovable asset, intended to accommodate a significant part of an individual’s life, and often passed down through generations as a family heritage. Temporary housing emerges as a typical architectural typology of the post-modern era, constituting the most direct response to the living habits of the contemporary nomad. Presently, people identify themselves as nomads, beings in constant movement from one place to another due to work, study, and other circumstances. Hence, there is a need to build with a perspective of transitoriness, a practice that has become essential to address the growing demands and housing needs. The student way of life is intrinsically linked to the temporary dimension; however, the various situations are not homogeneous. The needs and expectations, the attended faculty, age, geographic origin, and individual requests differ from student to student. One of the key issues to consider is understanding the nature of the user base and becoming aware that it consists of a highly diversified demographic, «going beyond the construction of housing measurable and definable by quantitative standards and [considering] where it is located, what relationship it has with others, and above all, who its inhabitant is» [1]. The student residence must be able to blend a variety of options to satisfy the widest possible range of residents, from those seeking privacy to those who consider communal living a foundational principle. The emerging needs can be both objective and shared, as well as subjective and personal, tied to diverse lifestyles and cultures. The activities that characterize students’ day outside study hours can be categorized into two main areas: basic functions, common to all individuals as they are essential to everyone’s daily life (such as eating, sleeping, studying, etc.), and lifestyle functions, which vary based on the user, their values, and culture, further characterizing and diversifying behaviors and needs. «The specific functions of domestic life require different spaces, each with a minimum extension that can be precisely determined. For each function, there is a ‘minimum standard capacity’ necessary and sufficient (human scale). The sequence of these functions is established according to a logic that is more biological than geometric» [2].

From the perspective of architectural disciplines, practical functions, and social aspects, a close connection emerges between the microcosm generated at the building level and the macrocosm developed at the urban scale. Until the 1970s, spaces designated for university student housing were conceived as distinct entities from the urban fabric, although often inserted within it. University residences were considered specialized areas, and the design was largely limited to following standards and minimum quantitative parameters to safeguard the quality of students’ lives. Over time, the view of the relationship between university spaces and the surrounding environment has undergone a significant change. Isolation has been replaced by the idea of integration between students and the urban environment. The university, with its services, is now conceived as an organism open and in dialogue with the context, not only from a practical and social perspective but also culturally and formally. On the urban and architectural side, it is important to emphasize that the significant scale of student housing developments, often accompanied by other interventions in the university context (educational services, research facilities, infrastructure), involve large portions of the city, leading to significant modifications to its overall structure. From this perspective, projects mainly develop along two models: the campus model, inspired by Anglo-Saxon and North American traditions, isolated and generally self-sufficient in terms of educational and residential functions, and the model integrated into the urban fabric and city services, more common in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. The model originally adopted in the early university colleges, characterized by isolation from the outside, has gradually given way to greater permeability and interconnection with the external environment, in terms of services, context, and social interaction. Currently, student residences are increasingly prevalent in university cities, responding to the growing demand for housing for out-of-town students, presenting themselves as open organisms in dialogue with the functional, cultural, social, and formal context. The search for available areas within the existing urban fabric may sometimes pose challenges, but it can be overcome by identifying buildings or spaces to be redeveloped and adapted for the chosen new uses. In Italy, the establishment of university infrastructures has primarily affected consolidated historical centers, posing challenges related to the fragmented location of facilities. When it was possible to concentrate settlements, this often occurred in peripheral and distant positions from the central urban core. Integrating student housing within the influence area of the university structure requires a careful analysis of the services to be offered or already available, assessing their convenience and accessibility to support the new concentration of accommodation spaces. The goal is to pursue real integration with the context and optimize the use of existing services and spaces, transforming them into actual places for cultural and social exchange among students and between them and the resident population. For these reasons, university student residences represent one of the most suitable typologies for regenerating existing urban contexts, as they are inherently predisposed to sharing spaces and services. The focus of the investigation is on the contemporary European city, radically distinct from its industrial and post-industrial counterparts, shaped by a gradual expansion process with rational functional zoning. The current city appears as a porous and fragmented fabric, composed of built systems, semi-built areas, and open spaces. An urban environment that cannot be shaped using the methods and strategies of the previous settlement model; urban fractures cannot be healed with planned densification interventions. The contemporary city must be approached by accepting its nature, characterized by urban spaces with different densities and land use patterns, along with natural and semi-natural spaces. Consequently, the intervention tool must necessarily take on a new form: urban regeneration, considered a policy for the sustainable progress of cities, emerges as a central element around which to reconfigure intervention tools in plans for the redevelopment, restructuring, or radical replacement of the existing built fabric. This study on the city and contemporary living, therefore, requires a reflection from the social sciences on the inhabitants, both present and future, and their spatial perspectives. «The rationalist determinism, as the sole measure of space interpretation, has been replaced by the anthropological and cultural interpretation, which is less imperative and more possibilistic. [..] Instead of separation and division based on functions, overlapping and adjustment of spaces have been preferred» [3]. The idea of community is closely connected to that of engagement, and it is challenging to address one without referencing the other. The modern city is characterized by a variety of facets, and the response to this complexity must necessarily reflect such diversity. It cannot be constrained by preconceived spatial or functional ideologies but must organically emerge from the natural evolution of the European city and its peculiarities. In the 1950s, Kevin Lynch developed the concept of the “environmental image”. According to Lynch, this represents the “generalized mental picture of the external physical world that each individual carries with him” [4]. Given the broad scope and complexity of the urban environment, it cannot be assimilated in a single instance but rather through experience. The environmental image is the result of both immediate perception and layered past experiences in memory, used by the inhabitants of a city or neighborhood to interpret information from the surrounding environment. The order sought by the individual in unconsciously composing their environmental image is a flexible order, adaptable to new activity patterns and developments. The environmental image, in line with the concept of adaptation, represents a continuous process characterized by the interaction between the observer and the surrounding environment: the latter suggests possible differences and relationships among its parts, while the individual observes, selects, organizes, and attributes meaning. The common mental framework, the area of consensus that emerges between an individual physical reality and a shared habitation culture, constitutes the group image. This shared representation is crucial for individuals to act in their context, collaborate with others, be part of a community, and share a collective space.

Particularly relevant in the context of our investigation is the perspective that these new constructions could constitute interventions capable of regenerating large portions of the city, bringing new impulses through projects that consider new standards of quality and livability. The needs of students are mainly divided into two fundamental categories: the private sphere and the social one. Consequently, these two categories define the conception of spaces within a residence: private spaces and common spaces. Private spaces are intended for the student’s privacy and include activities such as sleeping, washing, studying, and eating alone or with a small group of cohabitants. Common spaces, on the other hand, are designed for collective activities or in the presence of other students, in places specifically designated for such purposes. Students feel the need to interact socially in various forms, ranging from a small circle of friends to a small group and even to the community, in all the spaces available to them. The balance between housing functions and services is a crucial point in the design and management of university residences. From the student’s perspective, the quantity and quality of services are essential to meet the needs of individual growth, social interactions, and education during the university journey. At the same time, the sizing of services is constrained by the need to contain management and maintenance costs while ensuring high standards of quality and efficiency. University residences, being temporary living spaces, respond to the need to provide accommodation for a limited period, with a user base that changes with variable frequency. This constant turnover involves changes in the identification criteria of users, considering their diverse cultural, social, and economic spheres, as well as different ways of using spaces. The user base is also subject to continuous changes in terms of social composition, cultural background, and geographical origin. Concerning this, the evolution of student needs is evident, particularly pronounced in a category characterized by rapid and radical behavioral changes. For example, the use of new technologies has revolutionized knowledge acquisition, social interactions, and communication methods, while different cultures and traditions influence how students appropriate spaces. These factors impact the design of spatial and functional models, requiring flexibility and adaptability to the changing needs of each functional area. New approaches to university education, characterized by international student mobility, diversification of knowledge sources, and the multiplication of learning locations, are transforming students’ relationship with study times and places, increasingly orienting learning from theoretical aspects to practical ones.

These buildings must act as connectors between the private and social dimensions, offering communal services that facilitate socialization while simultaneously promoting an appropriate study environment. There is no shortage of buildings designated for collective residences that are well integrated into historical cores or established European cities, which can serve as virtuous models of the design approach. A significant example is represented by the Tietgenkollegiet dormitory building (2006), designed by Lundgaard & Tranberg Arkitekter, located in the Ørestad district of Copenhagen, Denmark. The architects, in presenting the project, reflect on how to create an optimal structure for a community of 400 students, while simultaneously allowing for individual space for personal development. The building features a circular plan and is developed around a central courtyard that serves as a spacious collective green area. The 360 rooms are positioned on the outer side with views of the surrounding city, while common functions are concentrated towards the interior, articulated through dynamic forms that converge towards the center of the courtyard. On the ground floor, the building hosts common facilities for the entire college, while the six upper floors accommodate the dormitory residences. The dynamic and sculptural aspect of the project derives from the contrast between the overall configuration of the building and the individual articulation of the housing units. The circular shape of the building, besides symbolizing equality and community cohesion, effectively opposes the distinct expression of identity inherent in each residence. This contrast is crucial in the innovative design approach adopted, as it allows for the creation of an architectural environment that reflects and valorizes both the collective element and the individual dimension, made evident through the distinct characterization of the individual housing units. This aspect represents not only an innovative interpretation of the concept of community but also an effective response to the needs and expectations of the inhabitants, who find in the combination of collective space and individual identity a living environment rich in meaning and opportunities for interaction and personal development. Another design reference is provided by the architectural proposal put forward by Kengo Kuma and Associates in the context of the “Résidence étudiante du Grand Morillon” competition in 2017, organized by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. The intervention garnered significant interest for its boldness and originality. The competition called for the creation of a student housing building with 700 beds, considering not only various apartment types but also the need to integrate public and communal spaces. A fundamental aspect of this innovation is the conception of an “ascending promenade” carved inside the building, designed to overturn the traditional “vertical segregation” [Javier Villar Ruiz] resulting from the use of only elevators. The ascending promenade, considered the cornerstone of the proposal, winds sinuously from the lower level to the pinnacle of the building, acting as a unifying axis, along which collective activities are distributed. This solution not only promotes greater social interaction and a sense of community cohesion among residents but also a more active lifestyle, encouraging the use of stairs and facilitating social encounters along the path. The tangible and accessible presence of this element on every floor emphasizes the essential role of design in articulating social dynamics and promoting the well-being of residents within living spaces. Kengo Kuma’s proposal emerges as a cutting-edge solution offering not only easy access to the building’s amenities but also an environment that fosters social interaction and an active lifestyle. This architectural vision fully embodies the potential offered by conscious design in shaping satisfying living experiences and cohesive and inclusive communities, through architecture in which the private, public, and collective seamlessly integrate without losing their distinctive identity.