Thesis Prep Book

The Microcosmic Campus: Defining the Identity of People and Place with Student Residences

Thesis Prep May 2015 Kamila Buraczynski Advisor: Bruce Abbey Committee: Lydia Kallipoliti/Lori Brown & Susan Henderson

Table of Contents: introduction

page 4

contention

page 7

analysis: precedent

page 8

analysis: university

page 26

analysis: site

page 35

analysis: program

page 49

conclusion

page 60

works/images cited

page 61

3

introduction The following definitions are for terms which appear repeatedly throughout this book, in the context of this project.

Identity a description of a place, person, or thing which defines its essence and what is most memorable or vital about it.

When referring to humans, there can exist social and personal identity, which is determined by circumstances surrounding the person in question and the choices they make.

Social/Collective Identity A definition of oneself based on where the individual fits in within a larger group. This is determined by one’s location, sense of belonging, and social interaction with others. This is not necessarily resulting from choice, as people can identify with the place they were born, or the religion they grew up with.

Personal/Individual Identity Refers to the characteristics of a single person and is determined by their interests, experiences, and the choices they make.These decisions together define what is most important to the person and essentially who they are.

Closed System A system of campus planning, most famously exemplified by the residential colleges in place at Oxford and Cambridge, which arranges academic and living program around a central courtyard or multiple courtyards. It is not uncommon for the earlier verisions of this system to combine a church or chapel, library, dining hall, student housing units, and faculty housing units all into a single complex.

Open System A system of campus planning which treats the university campus as a village. The open system is exemplified

by Thomas Jefferson’s Academical Village at the University of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson’s model at UVA lines two continuous rows of program along either side of the central lawn, a place for socializing, recreation, and learning. The program was originally intended to house ten pavilions, each specializing in a different discipline and providing space for instruction and living quarters for professors, connected by strips of student living units.

4

University in the City: Distinguishing Campus from City Unlike Universities intentionally planned away from metropolitan areas which form an identity based on their educational curriculum and achievements, institutions like the University of Toronto which are located and surrounded by developed urban contexts take on the identity of the city they are associated with, despite their attempts to create a unique institutional district. Although the University of Toronto strives to make its downtown campus a protected and unique institutional community through its planning, much of the strategy deals with how the University grounds and buildings are perceived from points in the city of Toronto and gates connecting the campus to the urban context, making the identity dependent on the city as opposed to independent of the city. As a place where identity is discovered, the university, the campus or “the place” should also have a memorable and distinguished identity which encourages the development of student identity— even if some of the characteristics of the city of Toronto inevitably contribute to this.

Identity: What is it?

Literally defining identity can produce many results. There exist numerous kinds of identities, and even more ways to create that identity. For example, national identity, social identity, personal identity, ethnic identity, and gender identity are just some of the possibilities one may think of. People can be a product of the place they live, the people they interact with, the activities they choose to partake in, their experiences, and their goals for the future. With such an elusive definition of identity, it is important to define it in clear terms which specifically relate to those identities formed on university campuses.

Fearon, a political scientist at Stanford, writes that the common clarification of the word reads: “identity is how I define who I am.” He argues that the present-day meaning of identity is actually split into two categories: the social and personal. To Fearon, social identity is determined by a belonging membership to a group and personal identity refers more to a distinguishing trait which someone takes pride in (Fearon, 4). Although these definitions and categorization do help to narrow down the definition in a general perception of identity, I would further claim that identity, when experienced in university, has to with the choices made by the individual to determine their social and personal presence— splitting it up into the collective identity and individual identity which combined, make up the single unified identity of a person. Collective identity is something which results from the associations and groups one chooses to be a part of, the people they enjoy being around, and their sense of belonging to a larger stratum (this could be a nation, a place, religion, or a generation. Individual identity, then, would derive from the interests one chooses to pursue, the elective classes one may choose to take, and the experiences of the person. Just as important though, is the expression of these traits.

5

Finding Identity at University As a place where students go to find their own identity, universities should foster an environment which encourages students to “find themselves” by being a place of and promoting identity. Similar to the way in which academia at the university level allows students to choose the degree they want to pursue and the courses they wish to take in order to achieve that degree (especially at the University of Toronto, which allows for several credits to be taken outside of the discipline of concentration), the architecture on campus also has the ability to foster decision making, choice, and expression through the social spaces, activity spaces, and organization it has the power to create.

One of the major elements which university life revolves around is finding ones’ identity; as residence halls are meant to be a home for these students and can provide valuable space for self expression, residences can also serve to create an identity for the university.

Dealing with Existing Identities: Coming into university, students may already have some sort of indentity— a few hobbies they may have picked up in high school , sports or musical interests initiated by family, relgious traditions and values, etc. As students branch out to determine which of these identifiers they are proud of and wish to maintain or associate with, it is important for the living conditions to accomodate to this transition phase while at the same time promote exploration.

Desigining for Flux As this project deals with the identity of place and person, it is important to realize that there is an unequivalent rate of change between the two. According to Dovey,“Places are identified with what does not change; their ‘sense of place’, ‘character’ or ‘identity’ is seen as relatively stable. Places are experienced primarily in terms of stabilized contexts of everyday life and they are a primary means by which we stabilize our identities in that world. Yet [...] human identities are in a continuous process of change...” (3). Following Dovey’s claim that places are associated with static qualities and that personal identies remain in flux, desiging a residential building which provides a stable “sense of place” but allows students to encounter multiple experiences (which are normally found elsewhere on campus) could result in a comfortable environment where students can define themselves.

Closed versus Open Planning Systems Merging the closed campus planning system, (described in detail later in this book) which promotes intimate communities, and the open village-based system which encourages free-choice, is a way to create a living environment which encourages self exploration. Social identity becomes developed by the closed system principles— which work to unify the collective students wheras exploration of personal identity is encouraged by the open-system principles which advocate for free-choice and focus on the individual’s relationship to the larger “village” structure.

6

contention Contention: The discovery of one’s identity in a university setting reflects the “finding” of oneself within a physical context that promotes interaction with group of people and individuals. The design of buildings with residential program that provide multiple experiences, places of activity and learning, and redefinition of a place is the goal of this thesis.

Methodology: This project is to design a residential building for the University of Toronto, which will combine the closed Oxbridge residential college model with the open Academical Village plan of UVA to promote varied spaces and mixed programs in order to reflect the diversity of the campus and city, and to develop a planning style which combines both the patterns of the surrounding urban context and the patterns found on campus.

Additionally, the final design will promote a sense of identity for both the individual student and the place through spaces which allow for individual personalization. Because identity is often in flux, the final design will also have to be able to readily address changing conditions.

Questions to address: • How can residence halls promote the development of identity for person and place?

• How to encourage the defining of identity for the student?

• How to create an identity for the place?

• How to address the issue of identity in flux/ something which is constantly changing

7

analysis: precedent

8

Because of the organization of the University of Toronto campus— which uses boundaries and closed courtyards to create an intimate institutional community within the campus, but also connects to the urban fabric with streets running through the entire length of the campus— the precedents chosen closely employ either closed or open system of organization.

Trinity College at Cambridge conveys the Oxbridge idea of closed residential colleges, which is a prevalent typology used for the early architecture of the University of Toronto campus. Although the Oxbridge system does bridge the three elements of education, living and social interaction into an intimate community and creates various social courtyard conditions, it closes itself off from the rest of the city and campus. Old Graduate College at Princeton, a North American interpretation of the English system, and Tietgenkollegiet in Copenhagen share the closed courtyard design but approach it differently than the example at Trinity College.

Based on the monastery, residential colleges provided an enclosed community for students and faculty which often combined living spaces, classroom spaces, a dining hall, a cathedral or chapel, and a library. The social spaces in the design were a place for reflection, studying, and conversation. In this sense, the residential college model would promote a collective environment in which students could identify with a larger religious, social or academic group.

The open system is primarily exemplified by Thomas Jefferson’s Academical Village at the University of Virginia, which was also an inspiration for the original King’s College scheme for the University of Toronto. Thomas Jefferson’s model at UVA combines the elements of education, living, and social interaction, but results in a series of formally monotonous spaces and removes boundaries, resulting in a village-like organization. Unlike the Oxbridge system, this design focuses on the inidividual; the plan contains several isolated elements which are connected to form the larger “village.” Modern interpretations of this open system of residential styles is examined through examples such as Alvar Aalto’s Baker House at MIT and the Vertical Student Housing project by República Portátil. In the open village-inspired system, the village becomes the collective unit, but the exploration of identity happens on a personal scale. Each pavilion represents a different academic concentration and encourages of the elective course system, which gives students the opportunity to choose and pursue their own interests.

A formal exploration of both systems and their derivatives could be used to find a mixed system which makes living on campus more comfortable and contributes to the university’s identity by embracing the openness of the city and the closed intimacy of the campus. At the same time this would allow the student to personally associate both themselves with an intimate social community while still focusing on their individual interests free-choice.

LEGEND Occupancy Type

9

S

U of T Students

S+

U of T Masters and Doctoral Students

F

Faculty

O

Other (Spouses, family, non U of T students,etc.)

10

Oxbridge Residential College: Trinity College at Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

Figure 1 shows a birds eye view of Trinity College at Cambridge Unviversity and emphasizes the way in which the residential college creates a boundary between the inner courtyard space and the exterior grounds. The bottom drawing depicts an elevation and section of the Northwest Facade of Christopher Wren’s Trinity College Library, one of the amenities of this “closed” college.

11

FIGURE 3

The above image shows the division of spaces at Trinity College with a detailed plan. The many programmatic elements of the college, including the library, chapel, kitchens, class and lecture rooms, and living spaces become apparent. The plan shown in Figure 4 conveys the “closed” form of the college. Whereas collonades exist on the interior of the quadrangles, allowing for permability, the exterior walls along the outside edge of the college form a hard boundary, differentiating between internal community and external city. Seeing the plan this way, the cloisters and monasterical influence becomes apparent.

Figures 5 and 6 depict the inside of the Great Court (left) and a perspective (right) of the West end of Neville’s court showing Wren library flanked by two cloister-walks.The spaces are designed so that the occupants become enclosed within the construct and its social spaces.

12

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

13

14

Graduate College at Princeton University Ralph Adams Cram

FIGURE 7

15

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

16

Tietgenkollegiet in Copenhagen, DK Lundgaard & Tranberg

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 13

17

18

The Academical Village: University of Virgina, VA Thomas Jefferson

“Large houses are always ugly, inconvenient, exposed to the accident of fire, and bad in cases of infection. A plain small house for the school & lodging of each professor is best. These connected by covered ways out of which the rooms of the students should open would be best. These may then be built only as they shall be wanting. In fact, an University should not be an house but a village.”

-Jefferson, January 5, 1805, in Peterson, Jefferson Writings, 1152.

FIGURE 14

FIGURE 15

The picturesque painting and the dramatic engraving above show two different depictions of Thomas Jefferson’s design for the Academical Village at the University of Virginia. Although the top image shows more of the surrounding landscape, extending to the outer ranges, and the bottom image emphasizes the extensive continuity of the residences, both place importance on the central lawn as a space for gathering and socializing.

19

These images are a redrawing of Thomas Jefferson’s Elevation Showing Typical Pavilion and Dormitories for Albemarle Academy (August 1814), and clearly show the beginnings of the Academical Village. This elevation and set of plans was created prior to acquiring a site for the project and therefore provides a pure image of his idea, as opposed to an altered one due to site conditions or regulations. Similar to the Academical Village at the University of Virginia, the original conception was based on connecting pavilions through long strips of residential program.

20

The above drawings are show the front facade and floor plans for the 1819 design of Pavilion II at the Academical Village at the University of Virginia. The first floor plan (bottom left) depicts a large classroom-like space for teaching, whereas the second floor plan (upper right) provides living spaces for a professor. The plan in the lower right is of the basement.

Like the pavilion drawing for Albemarle Academy, this design for Pavilion II is also two storeys, provides space for instruction, and would also presumably be connected to other pavilions through long dormitory strips. In this sense, a major goal of both village designs is to provide connectivity between the students’ living quarters, professors’ living quarters, teaching spaces, and open lawn.

21

22

Baker House, MIT Alvar Aalto

FIGURE 16

FIGURE 17

FIGURE 18

23

24

Vertical Student Housing Proposal for Concepción, Chile República Portátil

FIGURE 19

FIGURE 20

FIGURE 22

FIGURE 21

25

analysis: university

26

FIGURE 23

The University of Toronto: Picturesque Public Research School The University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, began as a confined campus based primarily on the residential college style of planning. As it has expanded, satellite campuses were developed in nearby cities like Mississauga and Scarborough, and the downtown Toronto campus acquired and constructed several buildings which are scattered throughout the city. As an expanding university with a long history, the University of Toronto is bringing the culture and characteristics of Toronto into the St.George campus through sky-scraperesque residences and buildings, though claims to strive to preserve their unique historical and intimate community which is based on the traditional English model. In my opinion, an intermediary solution which combines both the influences of the external urban environment with the academic institution’s achievements, organization, and history would create a new image which matches the prestige of the school and makes the campus an identifiable place which can also promote self discovery for the students.

These next few pages focus on the long history of the University of Toronto and break down the existing residential typologies on the university campus. The image to the left shows the first few university buildings at the school’s current main campus location and the former Taddle Creek which separated the central point of the current campus from the original location (in Queen’s Park- the landscape to the right of the creek), which now serves as a governmental role.

27

28

29

30

Looking at the existing options for student and faculty residences at the University of Toronto, it is evident that there is an abundance of various kinds of living arrangements, ranging from single sex residences to co-ed and from traditional dormitory style residences to high-rise suite style.

The legend below explains what each of the icons paired with the examples mean, and is used throughout other parts of this book.

LEGEND Occupancy Type

Organization

S

U of T Students

S+

U of T Masters and Doctoral Students

Co-ed Floors, Same Sex Units

Faculty

Co-ed Units

Other (Spouses, family, non U of T students,etc.)

Includes Dining Hall/ Meal Plan Services

F O 31

Co-ed Residence, Same Sex Floors

32

33

34

analysis: site The site for this thesis is the University of Toronto downtown campus- more specifically, a portion of the back campus field. As a area of “Special Identity,� according to the City of Toronto City Planning Division, this area is part of the larger framework which creates a historical and unique (that is to say, distinguished from the city) image for the university. Because this area constitutes a sense of place, it makes sense that it would provide an opportunity for a building design which can combine and replicate the rest of campus into a single conglomeration which also aids in further identifying the individual students, and the place itself.

The drawings to the right depict the campus as delineated by its boundaries determined by the city of Toronto and the planning patterns which emerge: for example, the regions formed, the major open spaces, and the street organization. These diagrams depict the important features of the campus which play a larger role in identifying its organization, navigation, and circulation.

The following pages delve deeper into site analysis, showing figure ground depictions of the campus, a break down of the building uses and types, patterns of residence development, and an analysis of the footprints of the existing contextual residences. Looking at the existing residences explains that with time, the buildings have become smaller and smaller in footprint, acting almost as infill. Despite the limitations in space, many still attempt to follow the courtyard system in place by the residential college model even if executed in a more open configuration.

35

St. George Street and University Avenue split the campus up into thirds.

When looking at Queens Park as the central point (origin of U of T), the western half contains the newer university buildings, and the eastern half contains the older, but also ties in the city.

Pattern of Campus: circles and ovals connected to the major city streets.

Cluster of buildings and open spaces surround the center of the bounded campus.

The very left third of campus is composed of a strict grid-plan. As you move east, the street planning becomes more complex.

Major geometries on campus.

Major open spaces within campus boundaries: the central point falls at Back Campus.

City streets which pass through campus.

Divisioned areas of campus buildings based on major streets.

36

Figure Ground Diagram of the University of Toronto Downtown Campus, West of University Avenue 37

Reverse Figure Ground Diagram of the University of Toronto Downtown Campus, West of University Avenue 38

Non U of T Residences Building

Museums

U of T Major Libraries

Rotman Commerce

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering

Faculty of Sciences

Faculty of Arts

39of Theology Toronto School

Student/Faculty Services

LEGEND U of T Residence Building

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering Building

Non U of T Residence Building

U of T Science Building

Museum

U of T Arts Building

U of T Major Library

Toronto School of Theology

Rotman Commerce Building

Student/Faculty Services or Amenity

40

Student Residences on the University of Toronto Downtown Campus, West of University Avenue 41

Harbord Street

St. George Street

Bloor Street W

Hoskin Street

Wilcocks Street

42

43

44

Devonshire St. George Street

Hoskin Street

SITE

’s

g Kin

College Circ le

45

150 ft

375 ft

475 ft

205 ft

100 ft

Whereas the western edge of St. George Street is lined with academic buildings, the eastern edge is lined with student residences, especially in the stretch from Wilcocks Street to Bloor Street— almost forming a strip. Looking at where this “residence strip” falls, a sliver of Back Campus becomes one of the few spaces with no development. Although it can be argued that because of the few open spaces left on the urban campus this plot should be left alone, the Toronto City Planning Division states that any construction within the Main Campus area should “promote high quality usable open spaces which continue the pattern of university open space types and are physically and visually linked to the streets, parks, and mid block pedestrian routes.” Designing for this site would only continue the existing patterns, and may promote further use of the Back Campus. Currently, the space operates as a playing field though it is only safely usable from June to October when it is not covered in snow and is less muddy. However, for three of those months regular class is no longer in session. During the winter, back campus is mainly avoided by students anyways and serves more frequently as a space for events such as the annual art festival, Nuit Blanche, or the 2015 Pan-Am Games. Because building on this site only takes up a portion of Back Campus, these events would still be able to take place there, with the event space more clearly delineated.

46

47

48

LA TE A

FT ER N

OO N

AFTERNOON

analysis: program

MO

RN

ING

ING

EVEN

RNING

EARLY MO

TE LA NG

I EN

EV

NIGHT

49

Typical Student Day

The program for this project will be determined by multiple factors such as: the typical student day, survey answers from students regarding residential life, student movement throughout campus, the surrounding context, and student needs. The discussion of program analysis begins with the typical student day.

The student has a day-to-day life unlike most people. With a somewhat self-determined schedule, and freedom to choose where to go somewhere and when (for example, going to class is no longer obligatory but rather a choice), students have a schedule which is often changing. However, there are some assumptions which can be made. For one, we can assume that majority of students will eat at least two to three meals a day, attend several hours of class on any given day, are involved in some sort of extra-curricular activity or have an interest outside of class, they will study or work on their coursework at some point, they will socialize with others, and that they sleep. Although the timing of these activities may vary from the diagram to the left from student to student, we can generally assume that majority of students will have a similar schedule and one which is not static. As such, the program for the design should reflect the versatility of a typical student day and offer an environment to carry out many, if not all, of these activities.

The freedom of the student schedule is something which plays a role in defining oneself and one’s passions.

Designing a place which allows for a development of these passions and social activities can help in promoting self discovery.

50

Survey results

The following survey questioned a number of students or recent students about their current housing situation, their best student housing experience, their worst student housing experience, and the things they look for or wish they had in a residence. On the right-hand side are selected quotations taken from the answers of the survey which required a written response. From conducting the survey, it became clear that room-mate relationships and relationships with neighboring students played a large role in the housing experience.

After looking at the data collected, the program decisions were tailored to address some of the issues outlined in the survey. A personal space that “belongs� to the student in some way was a major theme.

51

52

Existing residences near site + their additional program

Trinity College Residence

Whitney Hall

Library Dining Hall

St. Hilda’s Residence Dining Hall

Sir Daniel Wilson Residence

Wetmore & Wilson Halls

Innis College Residence

Dining Hall

Library Classrooms Dining Hall

Bookstore/Convenience Shop

New College III

Woodsworth College Residence

Morrison Hall

Auditorium Offices

Classrooms 53 Cafe

Dining Hall

all programs combined

Many of the exisitng residences near the site bring program found elsewhere on campus into the student living space. Whitney Hall is the only residence of those examined which is entirely residential. Currently, incoming students often choose their colleges (and as a result, residences) based on their interests or areas of study. For example, New College attracts students interested in Carribbean and African studies because their library specializes in texts on this topic and the College offers courses on it. The major residences associated with New College are Wetmore and Wilson Halls, which actually house the library with this specialty collection.

For students who are still undecided as to what their academic or personal interests are, a residence which combines all of the programmatic elements found elsewhere on campus could provide an experimental living experience which could eventually lead to a discovery of self.

54

55

Programmatic breakdown by layers

By combining the programs found on and near campus into a single, multi-layered building, a microcosm is formed which creates a more intimate version of the large surrounding campus and city.

The smaller scale results in a place which allows for an exploration of university life quite literally “from the comfort of one’s home.�

56

57

The above diagram shows possible square footages and breakdowns of the program. Combining residential units, classroom and educational facilities, common areas for socializing, and a mixed use program which leaves room for study carrels, bookshops, cafes, and digital stations, allows all major programming found on campus to be brought into a single structure. Although the various program is stacked vertically, this building, or series of buildings, can extend all along the “residential strip� found on campus.

58

Potential proposals

These diagrams represent, through shaded boxes, moments which occur along the length of the building providing an opportunity of extra program for self expression and personalization by the occupants. These moments do not have an allocated amount of square footage associated with them because they do not necessarily have a footprint. These spaces could vary in size, be elevated, or even consist of voids.

In the first example, the extra program is embedded and plugged into the entire construct. The second version shows these boxes jutting out to create a hybrid courtyard condition that stays open, combining the closed arrangements of the monastery-inspired Oxbridge system with the openness of the Academical Village.

59

conclusion

By creating a residence which operates as a “vertical campus” or a microcosm for students which brings together the disparate educational facilities and social spaces found on the rest of campus, students are encouraged to more easily find a niche within an intimate environment resulting from the scaled down university model.

Although one may argue that part of creating identity is exploring and finding these options one your own, I believe that a stronger argument can be made that this exploration is not as important as exposure to these spaces and amenities. Because of the multitude of services and activities occurring on such a large campus embedded in a large city like the University of Toronto is, it is likely that students do not even realize that many of these opportunities for social interaction or for activities exist until they near graduation. By exposing students to the social spaces, activites, and educational facilities found elsewhere on campus, and within the city, they can feel more comfortable in exploring these options immediately after starting school. Additionally, bringing these elements of campus into a residential building creates a more comfortable atmosphere to explore these options while still close to their new “home.” This is worth noting, because when new to a place, the tendency is for people to stick to what is familiar first, and then branch out. The residence is quite possibly the single building which majority of non-commuting students will be most familiar within their first year and first few days of university.

It is important to note that claiming an identity or “finding oneself ” is not a static process and has to be adaptable to change. Similar to the educational curriculum at the University of Toronto, which promotes a high level of student choice in terms of classes taken to count towards a degree, this residential model also promotes choice in the form of personalization of space. As such, the final building design must accommodate the occupants which are constantly in flux— physically, mentally, and academically — while at the same time overlapping the organization principles of open and closed systems of campus planning.

60

works/images cited

Works Cited

Abel, Chris, and Norman Foster. Architecture and Identity: Responses to Cultural and Technological Change. Oxford: Architectural, 2000. Print.

Benoit, Michelle, and Richard Guy Wilson. “Jefferson and Marly: Complex Influences.” Bulletin Du Centre De Recherche Du Château De Versailles (2012): n. pag. Web. Blake, Robert R. “Housing Architecture and Social Interaction.” Sociometry 19.2 (1956): 133-39. JSTOR. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Blimling, Gregory S., and John H. Schuh. Student Learning in College Residence Halls: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why. Sa Francisco: Wiley, 2015. Print.

Canada. Toronto Urban Design Guidelines: University of Toronto (Main Campus). City of Toronto, 2004. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Canada. Toronto Urban Design Guidelines: University of Toronto (Main Campus). City of Toronto, 2009. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

“Cost Estimator.” RSMeans: Construction Cost Data. The Gordian Group, 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

Dober, Richard P. Campus Architecture: Building in the Groves of Academe. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Print.

Dober, Richard P. Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Features. New York: Wiley, 2000. Print.

Dober, Richard P. Campus Planning. New York: Reinhold Pub., 1964. Print.

Dovey, Kim. Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Duncan, James S. Housing and Identity: Cross-cultural Perspectives. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982. Print.

Fearon, James D. “What Is Identiy (as We Now Use the Word)?” (1999): n. pag. Stanford University Press. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

Geddes, Robert, William LaRiche, and Carl Kaysen. Theory in Practice: This Architecture Reflects the Dual Values of Practitioner and Teacher ; Theory in Practice, Part Two. New York: Whitney Publications, 1972. Print.

“High Life: 17th Annual Residence Hall Construction Report.” High Life: 17th Annual Residence Hall Construction Report. Pento, 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

High Rise or Low Rise? A Study of Decision Factors in Residence Halls Planning. Madison, WI: U Facilities Research Center, with the Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1964. Print.

“Housing Services.” Home. University of Toronto, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

61

Works Cited Neuman, David J., and Stephen A. Kliment. Building Type Basics for College and University Facilities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2003. Print.

King, Alyson E. “Centres of ‘Home-Like Influence’: Residences for Women at the University of Toronto.” Material Culture Review 49.Spring (1999). Web. 15 Mar. 2015.

“Photographic Tour of 19th Century Cambridge University.” Photographic Tour of 19th Century Cambridge University. New Boston Fine and Rare Books, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

Proshansky, Harold M., Abbe K. Fabian, and Robert Kaminoff. “Place-identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3.1 (1983): 57-83. Web. “Trinity College: An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of Cambridge.” British History Online.

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1959. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

“University of Toronto - Our History.” University of Toronto - Great Past. University of Toronto, 2003. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

62

Images Cited Figure 1: Loggan, David. Bird’s Eye View of Trinity College, Cambridge, with Great Gate and Great Court in the Foreground, Nevile’s Court and Wren Library in the Background. 1690. Intaglio Print. Cambridge, UK. WikiMedia Commons.

Web. 31 Jan. 2015.

Figure 2: Wren, Christopher. Trinity College Library: Elevation and Section of NW Facade. C. 1676. Cambridge, England.

Renaissance and Baroque Architecture: England. Cal Poly Pomona. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 3: Trinity College. Digital image. British History Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.

Figure 4: Caruso, Adam. Trinity College: Plan. Digital image. ETH Zurich. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 5: Winfield, William. Great Court, Trinity College, Cambridge University. c. 1870. New Boston Fine and Rare Books.

Figure 6: Caruso, Adam. Trinity College: Perspective. Digital image. ETH Zurich. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 7: Graduate College, Princeton University. N.d. Princeton, NJ. The Evolution of the Princeton Campus. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 8: Design for the Princeton University Graduate College. 1911. Print. Popular Science Monthly Volume 78, 13 May 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 9: Siteplan: Princeton. Digital image. Building Design UK. N.p., 29 Feb. 2008. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 10: Tietgenkollegiet // Lundgaard & Tranberg. 2009. Copenhagen, Denmark. ArchiCentral. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.

Figure 11: Lindhe, Jens M. Tietgenkollegiet Student Housing. N.d. Copenhagen, Denmark. ArchDaily. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.

Figure 12: Floor Plan. Digital image. ArchDaily. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.

Figure 13: Section. Digital image. ArchDaily. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.

63

Images Cited Figure 14: Tanner, Benjamin. University of Virginia. 1826. Engraving. Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, Charlottesville, Virginia. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 15: Serz, J. Jefferson’s Academical Village. 1856. Engraving. University of Virginia Visual History Collection. WikiMedia Commons. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 16: Baker House Street Side. N.d. Cambridge, MA. MIT Class of 1964. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 17: Baker House. N.d. KULTURKAMF. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 18: Aalto, Alvar. Baker House Plan and Elevation. N.d. Cambridge, MIT. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Figure 19: República Portátil. Vertical Student Housing Project from República Portátil to Foster Stronger Community Ties.

Digital image. ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Figure 20: República Portátil. Section Perspective of Vertical Student and Community Housing. Digital image. ArchDaily.

ArchDaily, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Figure 21: República Portátil. Section of Vertical Student and Community Housing. Digital image. ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Figure 22: República Portátil. First to Fourth Floor Plans. Digital image. ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Figure 23: Campus Map of Area Bounded by College, St. George, Bloor and Surrey Place [Plan of the University Park]. 1859.

University of Toronto. Old Toronto Maps. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Timeline Images (see captions for image titles/dates): “University of Toronto - Our History.” University of Toronto - Great Past. University of Toronto, 2003. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

Housing Styles at the University of Toronto: “Housing Services.” Home. University of Toronto, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

Site Photographs: Back Campus Site and Surroundings, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ca. Personal photographs with the help of Ramona Adlakha. 2015.