Prior to COVID, enrollment in postsecondary institutions was estimated to increase from 16.6 million in 2018 to 17 million in 20291. This means 400,000 new students across the United States. Considering that around 40% of students at public universities and 64% at private universities live on campus2, this calls for a widespread increase in on-campus housing. But growing enrollment is just one of the many challenges that campuses across the country are facing. When it comes to residence life, aging residence halls and competition for limited capital confound the problem. Regardless of the well-known disparity in performance of students between on and off campus residency, universities are often left competing against off-campus residencies with attractive modern amenities. Such challenges force universities to consider whether to renovate or build new, and whether to turn to the very same private student housing industry to produce additional beds. Finally, student safety and security has always been a concern but has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of recent violent incidences on campus.

As if this weren’t enough, residence halls began to have an entirely new set of issues to consider related to health and safety with the COVID pandemic. In the short-term, campuses had to respond quickly to keep students safe and implement new protocols. As universities pivoted to online learning and students moved out of residence halls, campuses were forced to consider the hidden risks of seemingly safe activities and living arrangements. Campuses now look forward determining how and when to resume campus operations. In the face of uncertainty, addressing short-term needs without compromising long-term goals will be a challenge for universities in the coming months.

Just as designers may want to build in flexibility for spacing now and maximum capacity once the coronavirus pandemic has subsided, there are numerous other considerations which evolve with time. The decisions made in the design process, such as focusing only on initial costs, may have long-term impacts on things like maintenance costs, durability, constructability, and later adaptability of the building. At a time when we’re inclined to be risk averse, it may be the opportune time to take advantage of declining prices and labor rates. So, how do we refrain from making decisions in the short term that may ultimately tie our hands and place limitations on the long-term experience of the residents?

As the bones for the building, the structural system is one of the most critical decisions that must be made early-on and has implications for subsequent design decisions. Many factors influence selection of a structural system including budget, site conditions, desired durability, constructability, material and labor availability, code limitations and many other criteria, which must all work with the desired bed count, proforma and project goals. Seemingly straight forward decisions are often more complicated than they appear, and it can be difficult to get clear “apples to apples” comparisons. For example, while wood framing is assumed to be more affordable, institutional bonding requirements and quality of labor can contribute substantially to the final cost. Sound decisions take into account a broad perspective of both short- and long-term considerations. Through our residence hall work with various universities, we have crafted evaluation tools and approaches to arrive at the optimal structural solution for each of our clients. As each situation, client and goals are unique, our analysis is customized for each project but our approach is always collaborative.

In 2011, when the economy was in a sharp down-turn, we worked with Texas Lutheran University to design Centennial Residence Hall. For this residence hall, TLU wanted to focus on durability, flexibility, and cost. As counter-intuitive and even scary as it seemed, our client discovered that building in a down economy was a great way to take advantage of declined labor and material costs. In collaboration with the structural engineer and contractor, our team performed a cost analysis of the various structural options to evaluate with the owner. The market conditions at the time made a post-tensioned building a viable option that allowed for greater durability and flexibility in the space, accomplishing precisely what the client sought.  Completed at just over $53K per bed and $176 per SF, sound decisions that looked beyond the short-term economy paid off; the client was able to construct a great building for a fraction of the cost.

For a Housing Complex at Texas State University, the primary goal was to create a residence hall available and affordable to first generation college students. This resulted in the objective: to achieve ultimate affordability. An emphasis was placed on efficiency and functionalism, no high-end amenities were necessary. The site constraints dictated two seven story towers distributing 1,016 beds between them. The structural system needed to maximize the bed count and also work on a challenging site. Working with Vaughan, the contractor, six different structural options were evaluated considering criteria such as Historical Precedence, Constructability, LEED, Architectural Implications, MEP implications, Flexibility, and Cost. A weighted average for each option was determined out of a total possible 100 points to rule out options and to identify viable options worthy of further focus. We discovered that stick framing would not be an adequate structural system for this project, due to height and area limitations imposed by the building code. This analysis ultimately resulted in selecting a structural system of post-tensioned two-way concrete slabs with steel roof framing. In addition to providing longevity, flexibility, and economy, the system provided schedule advantages such as the ability to potentially utilize two concrete sub-contractors, one for each tower.

Lubbock, located in West Texas, experiences tornadoes and frequent strong winds. As part of the Design-Build team for two different Texas Tech University residence halls, the selection of a structural system that could endure such extreme conditions was paramount. With the University’s interest in Insulating Concrete Forms (ICF), our Design-Build team explored the system to determine its viability for the two residence halls. ICF is a system of formwork that results in reinforced cast-in-place concrete that are sandwiched between layers of insulation materials. These systems are strong and energy efficient because the insulation that stays in place permanently. With ICF proven optimal, various flooring options which could be used in conjunction with the ICF walls were further evaluated. Precast concrete planks with a concrete topping was decided on and used in conjunction with the ICF and helped speed erection time.

Each client is different, and each project is different. Between the goals for the project, site, cost restrictions, safety, and numerous other factors, BGK works with clients and the whole team of subcontractors to evaluate the available solutions and select the best structural system for a project. While these examples highlight our analytic process for structural systems, we conduct analysis in a similar manner when deciding factors such as MEP systems, unit mix, amenities, finishes, and every design decision, scrutinizing every detail. We believe the best decisions are arrived at through an engaged process with a broad consideration of short- and long-term impacts that best support our client’s goals.