HISTORICAL INTEGRITY OF UNIVERSITY UNION BUILDINGS BUILT BEFORE
WORLD WAR II
By
Linda Jean Luoma

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Interior Design and Facilities Management - Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
HISTORICAL INTEGRITY OF UNIVERSITY UNION BUILDINGS BUILT BEFORE
WORLD WAR II
By
Linda Jean Luoma
This case study explores whether the retention or removal of historical features on
historic buildings affects the sense of place and community on a university campus. Three Union
buildings, located on the campuses of the University of Michigan, Purdue University and
Michigan State University, all designed by the architectural firm of Pond and Pond, were
selected as the basis for the research. Each Union building was built at approximately the same
time and for the same purpose. Each has undergone numerous renovations. This research
investigated how each university approached the renovations. One of the universities used a
Stylistic theory of renovation where each addition or renovation is easily identifiable;
furthermore most of the historical architectural features were removed or obscured with each
renovation. The other two universities predominately used the Conjunctive theory of renovation
and retained the original historical features incorporating the original Collegiate Gothic design
into the renovations. Using a qualitative research approach, 30 people on the Michigan State
University campus were interviewed and data was analyzed by use of the Mean’s End Theory
distribution method. The interviews determined that students, faculty and staff do care that the
original architectural features are retained during a renovation. It was also shown that when the
architectural features are removed or altered, the integrity of the building and sense of place and
community is also affected.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express the deepest appreciation and thanks to all those who
provided me the possibility to complete this report. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. April
Allen, for the guidance, knowledge and support she has shown during the many years it has
taken me to finalize this thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank my husband Dave and my
family for their endless love, support and patience. It has been a long five years. I would like to
thank Dr. Eunsil Lee for her advice and assistance with this paper, and Amy Arnold for her
professional guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Jon Burley for stepping in at the last
minute to be on my committee, as well as for his assistance and advice. Thanks also to my big
brother, Duane for his humor and guidance. Thanks also to my mother-in-law, Elthea, who
encouraged me to enroll in graduate school. I only wish she could have been here to see me
complete the program. Thank you to my father for his weekly comment of, “do you have that
damn thing done yet”, which always brought a smile to my face. I could not have done this
without the support of so many people who have answered my many questions and shown me

	

the importance of perseverance.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4
Study Justification........................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................................... 8
The Importance of a Union ............................................................................................................. 8
Definition of Community .............................................................................................................. 16
Sense of Place ............................................................................................................................... 20
The Architectural Firm of Pond and Pond .................................................................................... 23
Union Buildings Designed by Pond and Pond .............................................................................. 28
Purdue Memorial Union ................................................................................................... 28
Michigan State University. ............................................................................................... 33
University of Michigan. .................................................................................................... 35
Types of Renovation - Stylistic Unit Theory versus Conjunctive Theory.................................... 37

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Interview Part One - Student Involvement with the Union .......................................................... 53
Interview Part Two - Importance of the Union Building............................................................. 56
Question 1. Do you think the Union is one of the campus’s primary landmarks? If so,
why? .................................................................................................................................. 56
Question 2. Do you think the interior and architectural character is appropriate to the
institution’s educational mission? If so, how so? ............................................................ 57

iv

	

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 43
Research Design and Rationale .................................................................................................... 43
Qualitative Research ......................................................................................................... 44
Case Study Selection......................................................................................................... 45
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 45
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 47
Interview Method .................................................................................................. 48
Interview Design ................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis. ............................................................................................................................... 51

	

Question 3. Do you think the style of the interior of the Union complements and
contributes to the overall setting of the campus? If so, how? ........................................... 58
Question 4. Does the building represent the University’s spirit and tradition? ............... 59
Question 5. Do you think the Union serves as a gathering place for the entire campus
community?....................................................................................................................... 59
Interview Part Three - Response to Images .................................................................................. 60
Evaluation results of images of architectural characteristics within union buildings ....... 62
Group 1. Original exterior renderings by architectural firm of Pond and Pond .. 62
Group 2. Recent exterior photographs of front entrance ..................................... 64
Group 3. Photographs of ballroom design ........................................................... 64
Group 4. Photographs of lounges......................................................................... 65
Group 5. Photographs of corridors....................................................................... 66
Group 6. Photographs of paneling design ............................................................ 68
Group 7. Photographs of stair hand rails ............................................................. 69
Group 8. Photographs of food court .................................................................... 71
Group 9. Photographs of windows....................................................................... 72
Group 10. Photographs of flooring ...................................................................... 73
Interview Part Four: Response to Images - Past and Present........................................................ 75
Exterior images of the Union with emphasis on evaluating the windows ........................ 75
Exterior images of the Union with empahsis on evalauating the front entry doors .......... 76
Exterior images of the Union with emphasis on evaluating interior conference room .... 77
Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 79
Question 1. Do you think the Union is one of the campus’s primary landmarks?
If so, why? ............................................................................................................. 79
Question 2. Do you think the interior and architectural character is appropriate to
the institution’s educational mission? If so, how so? .......................................... 80
Question 3. Do you think the style of the interior of the Union complements and
contributes to the overall setting of the campus? If so, how? ............................ 81
Question 4. Does the building represent the University's spirit and tradition?..... 81
Question 5. Do you think the Union serves as a gathering place for the entire
campus community? ............................................................................................ 81
Analysis of respondent’s discussions about the images of the Union buildings
architectural characteristics ................................................................................... 82
Group 1. Original exterior renderings by architectural firm of Pond and Pond .. 82
Group 2. Recent exterior photographs of front entrance ..................................... 83
Group 3. Photographs of ballroom design ........................................................... 83
Group 4. Photographs of lounges......................................................................... 84
Group 5. Photographs of corridors....................................................................... 84
Group 6. Photographs of paneling design ............................................................ 85
Group 7. Photographs of stair hand rails ............................................................. 86
Group 8. Photographs of food courts ................................................................... 86
Group 9. Photographs of windows....................................................................... 87
Group 10. Photographs of flooring ...................................................................... 87
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 89

v

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Question 1. How do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel about the retention of the
original architectural features of the Union building? ...................................................... 89
Question 2. Do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel that the retention or removal of
historical architectural features interferes with the integrity of the building? Why do they
feel this way? .................................................................................................................... 97
Question 3. Do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel that the sense of community in the
student Union is modified by the loss or retention of the original architectural features?
Why do they feel this way? ............................................................................................. 101
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 102
Study Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 107
Limited Generalization of Findings ................................................................................ 107
Limited Interview Interpretation ..................................................................................... 107
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 107
Method for Strategic Assessment ............................................................................................... 109
Advantages of Restoration .......................................................................................................... 110
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 112
APPENDIX A: LETTER FOR USE OF PREVIOUSLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL ....... 113
APPENDIX B: IRB CERTIFICATE OF TRAINING .............................................................. 114
APPENDIX C: CONSENT LETTER ........................................................................................ 115
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ............................................................... 116
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW .................................................................................................... 118

	

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 132

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparison of Purdue Union original room locations to what is located in space in
2013.................................................................................................................................31
Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Scio-Demographic Characteristics.....................................47
Table 3: Example of Means End Distribution...............................................................................51
Table 4: Means End Theory Distribution of the Union as a Primary Landmark .........................80
Table 5: Means End Theory Distribution of Architectural Character Appropriateness
to Educational Mission ...................................................................................................80
Table 6: Means End Theory Distribution of Union’s Interior Space Contributing to the
Overall Setting of Campus ..............................................................................................81
Table 7: Means End Theory Distribution of the Unions as a Gathering Place for Campus ........82
Table 8: Means End Distribution - Original Architect's Rendering of Union Buildings .............83
Table 9: Means End Distribution - Front Entrance Design .........................................................83
Table 10: Means End Distribution - Ballroom .............................................................................84
Table 11: Means End Distribution - Lounges ..............................................................................84
Table 12: Means End Distribution - Corridors ............................................................................85
Table 13: Means End Distribution - Paneling Design..................................................................86
Table 14: Means End Distribution - Stair Hand Rails .................................................................86
Table 15: Means End Distribution - Food Courts .......................................................................87
Table 16: Means End Distribution - Window ...............................................................................87

	

Table 17: Means End Distribution - Flooring ..............................................................................88

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Houston Hall, University of Pennsylvania. The first Union building built in the United
States, (Before 1910) ...................................................................................................10
Figure 2: Circulation Pattern in a Union Facility Creating a Main Street ....................................15
Figure 3: Illustration of How a Sense of Place is an Interactional Concept .................................21
Figure 4: Hull House Designed by the Pond and Pond Architectural firm (2012 The Social
Welfare History Project,1920) .....................................................................................25
Figure 5: Example of stylistic and anti-scrape theories. Original Purdue University corridor
leading from original building into Stewart Center .....................................................40
Figure 6: Example of conjunctive theory. Original Purdue University corridor .........................42
Figure 7: Example of conjunctive theory. Renovated Purdue University corridor .....................42
Figure 8: Percentage Distribution of Interview Participants Relationship to MSU .....................46
Figure 9: Respondents Estimate of Visits to Union During Their Tenure at the
University .....................................................................................................................54
Figure 10: Respondents Purpose for Visiting the Union..............................................................55
Figure 11: Group 1 - Original Exterior Renderings by Architectural Firm of Pond and Pond ....63
Figure 12: Group 2 - Photographs of Front Entrance Design ......................................................64
Figure 13: Group 3 - Photographs of Ballroom Design ...............................................................65
Figure 14: Group 4 - Photographs of Lounge ..............................................................................66
Figure 15: Group 5 - Photographs of Corridors ...........................................................................67
Figure 16: Group 6 - Photographs of Paneling Design ................................................................69
Figure 17: Group 7 - Photographs of Stair Hand Rails ................................................................70

Figure 19: Group 9 - Photographs of Windows ............................................................................73

viii

	

Figure 18: Group 8 - Photographs of Food Court ........................................................................71

Figure 20: Group 10 – Photographs of Flooring ..........................................................................74
Figure 21: Exterior architects proposal sketches of structures ...................................................120
Figure 22: Front entrances of Union building ............................................................................121
Figure 23: Images of ballrooms .................................................................................................122
Figure 24: Images of lounges .....................................................................................................123
Figure 25: Images of corridors ...................................................................................................124
Figure 26: Images of paneling detail ..........................................................................................125
Figure 27: Images of stair hand rails ..........................................................................................126
Figure 28: Images of food courts ...............................................................................................127
Figure 29: Images of windows ...................................................................................................128
Figure 30: Images of flooring.....................................................................................................129
Figure 31: Images of MSU Union 1935 and 2013 .....................................................................130

	

Figure 21: Images of MSU Union windows 1949 and 2013......................................................131

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Continuity gives us roots; change gives us branches, letting us stretch and grow
and reach new heights. ~Pauline R. Kezer
When thinking of a college or university campus, what is the first iconic image that
comes to mind? Perhaps it is a Collegiate Gothic style building built with dark red brick that is
contrasted by lush green ivy vining over the surface, with doorways edged in limestone, and
impressive tracery patterned windows. Perhaps it is an expansive glass and metal structure,
designed in the post war International style. Each person comes to a college campus with their
own preconception of what the ideal campus architecture should look like. The initial visual
images of a specific university may attract people to it, and help instill memories and build
traditions. Is it imperative that the historical integrity of existing structures be preserved in order
for each generation to continue building their own memories and traditions? According to
Audrain (2011), the choice of the type of renovation may affect endowments and choices made
by future students:
While it may be difficult, there is value in preserving campus heritage. Alumni
care, and they will let the trustees and the president know they care if there is an
attempt to destroy a part of the past. There have also been articles and conference
presentations by Society for College and University Planning members that point
out the value of a well-maintained campus as a critical factor in a student’s choice
of college. (p.19)
Dober reiterates this sentiment by explaining how campus heritage can “nurture” alumni
attachment and affection for their alma mater, with the end result being promotion of the

further explains that campus heritage serves as a trophy to the “ambitions and attainment” of the
generations that have gone before (2005, p. 6).

1

	

institution, and involvement with the university in its fund–raising endeavors (2005, p. 6). Dober

As it is often necessary to renovate buildings to adapt to new technologies or even a
different function that was not imagined in the original design, the question becomes, how these
renovations should be planned in order to retain the character of the structure and does it matter
to students, alumni, faculty and staff if the architectural integrity is retained.
On most campuses there is usually a building that serves as a center for the university the Student Union. The Union is the community center of the college, serving students, faculty,
staff, alumni, and guests. According to the Association of College Unions International, a Union
is:
Traditionally considered the ‘Living Room’ of the campus, today’s union is the
gathering place of the college. The union provides services and conveniences that
members of the campus community need in their daily lives and creates an
environment for getting to know and understand others through formal and
informal associations. (n.d., p.2)
The Union also is the center for student government, home for various student
organizations and a place where social, academic and social needs meet. In 1909 Woodrow

The chief and characteristic mistake which teachers and governors of our colleges
have made in these latter days has been that they have devoted themselves and
their plans too exclusively to the business, the very common-place business of
instruction, and have not enough regarded the life of the mind. The mind does not
live by instruction. The real intellectual life of a body of undergraduates, if there
be any, manifests itself, not in the classroom, but in what they do and talk of and
set before themselves as their favorite objects between classes and lectures…
Contact, companionship, familiar intercourse is the law of the life for the
mind…So long as instruction and life do not merge on our colleges, so long as
what undergraduates do and what they are taught occupy two separate, air-tight
compartments in their consciousness, so long will the college be ineffectual…
If you wish to create a college, therefore, and are wise, you will seek to
create life… and fill it with the things of the mind and the spirit…
My plea, then is this: that we now deliberately set ourselves to make a
home for the spirit of learning; that we reorganize our colleges on the lines of this
simple conception, that a college is not only a body of studies but a mode of
association; that its courses are only its formal side, its contacts and contagions,

2

	

Wilson stated:

its realities. It must be a community of scholars and pupils. (as cited in Butts,
1971, p. 11)
The Student Union can provide such a place for contact, companionship and interaction,
A Union building is a place to build community and experience that sense of place that enriches
campus life. The building that houses a Union should be the heart of a campus – it has to pump
the life blood of the campus to sustain the existence of the university. Whatever form the
physical structure of the Union takes, a college union is an organization offering a variety of
programs, activities, services and facilities that, when taken together, represent a well-considered
plan for the community life of the college. Historically the college Union building represents an
opportunity where students and faculty can meet on equal ground, students can mingle, socialize,
and provides a safe haven for exploring new ideas and openly debating these ideas. The Union is
the center of campus life that helps develop the type of society that will influence a student’s
perspective on education and life going forward.
When a building is programmed to be enlarged or renovated; there are two types of
renovations to consider, one being whether the addition/renovation should retain the
characteristics of the original building, and the second being that the addition/renovation be
designed to be noticeably different, to show that the building has been altered. What happens to
the sense of place or community if the historical integrity of the Union building is altered or
completely removed? These are all questions designers and architects ask themselves at the
beginning of each and every project. What is not examined is, what students, faculty and alumni
desire from a renovation. Do they care if the original historical features are removed in order to

	

update the building?

3

Study Objectives
Consistency is comforting, but change is inevitable. Given changing needs, updates can
improve functionality, but could these new details interfere with the sense or spirit of place and
play havoc with recollections? It may be necessary to delete memories of the past in order to
appreciate the design of the future. How will an alumnus feel when returning to their Alma
Mater thirty years after they graduate for a visit to see the building that may have meant so much
to them has been completely changed? Will they find some detail that would remind them of
specific memories they attained as a student, or have those visual cues been erased during a
renovation? If everything has changed, will they feel disoriented, confused - sad? Will they lose
that sense of belonging? Little previous research could be found that explains how the retention
or elimination of historical attributes of a structure can emotionally impact a person, or affect the
use of the structure and value the structure holds in the community. This empirical study can
help to understand the attachments people form to buildings and how this attachment enhances
the sense of place and community. Ultimately this research can contribute to data on how a
renovation should be planned. Since the Union building is such a central part of university life,
it was selected to be researched as it is the one building that connects students, staff, faculty and
alumni.
Research questions are:
1. How do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel about the retention of the
original architectural features of the Union building?
2. Do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel that the retention or removal of

	

historical architectural features affects the integrity of the building? Why do
they feel this way?

4

3. Do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel that the sense of community in the
student Union is modified by the loss or retention of the original architectural
features? Why do they feel this way?
Study Justification
A large part of the process of the schematic design phase of a renovation is the
determination of how each restoration, preservation, addition or renovation should be
approached. Each building has its own history, function and style. According to the National
Trust for Preservation, preservation enhances our sense of community, it tells the “stories of our
past” (National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, 2013). During the
programming phase a large part of the discussion of the planning team is whether to retain
historical aspects – for example, the intricate wood moldings and trim from a building built at the
turn of the twentieth century, or the unadorned style of mid-twentieth century wood paneling.
Frequently the decision is to remove the historical architectural characteristics of the building in
order to make the renovation easier. The thought being, if the historical details need to be
repaired or copied, it would be too costly to preserve them. Another thought is that a trendier
design and style is what the general public, especially students, desire. Students, faculty, staff
and alumni are, by and large, not consulted when a renovation is planned. It is important to take
into consideration their opinions and desires since they work, play and learn in these buildings.
If the structure does not meet their needs and preconceptions, they may not use the building,
programs and services that are housed there.
Frequently it is determined that some of the historical buildings on a campus should not

University’s East campus has been nominated for America’s Eleven Most Endangered Historic

5

	

be restored or renovated, that they should be demolished. For example, Western Michigan

Places (("Explore America's 11," 2013) with three of its four buildings being slated for
demolition, rather than renovation. The estimated cost for renovation is $94.5 million. East Hall,
which is the university’s birthplace, will be the only remaining building. The university will
borrow $15 million for its restoration and convert it into an alumni center. A petition to save all
of the buildings has garnered 700 signatures (Zipp, 2013). A conclusion can be formed from this
action that people do care about buildings. If students, alumni and faculty had been consulted,
would the outcome be different? Another example is on the campus of Michigan State
University, Morrill Hall is slated to be demolished in 2013. This neo-classical building was built
in 1900 and was known as the Women’s Building, and jokingly referred to as the “Coop”
(Stanford & Dewhurst, 2002, p.62). This building is iconic to the campus of Michigan State
University. It is representative of how the college adapted to agricultural education and coeducation. It was originally built as a dormitory for women to pursue studies in Household
Science. It was named to honor Justin S. Morrill who introduced the bill that became the Morrill
Federal Land Grant of 1862 (Stanford & Dewhurst, 2002). This bill was signed into effect by
President Abraham Lincoln; allowing lands to be apportioned to each state so that they could
provide income with the monies used to support education that promoted mechanical and
agricultural arts. The Morrill Act was the beginning of Land Grant Universities, with Michigan
State being one of the first.
The choice of materials used to construct Morrill Hall has led to its ultimate demise.
Morrill Hall’s exterior was built of Lake Superior sandstone; unfortunately, the bricks have
weathered and deteriorated and the foundation of the building weakened over time and is in need

carefully before a determination is made to have it demolished. Ruskin states, “… that

6

	

of extensive repair. A building with this extensive integral history should be considered very

Architecture is to be regarded by us with the most serious thought. We may live without her, and
worship without her, but we cannot remember without her” (Ruskin, 1859 p. 147). Will the
memories of those who have lived, studied or work in Morrill Hall be tarnished after its
removal? Future students won’t even know such an important building existed. The fate of
Morrill Hall and the East campus of Western Michigan University is something that could
happen to a Union building or any other older campus structure if it is determined that the
renovation of the structure is too problematic or costly. Pam O’Connor, advisor for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, past president of Michigan Historic Preservation Network and
former chairwoman for the Kalamazoo Historic Preservation Commission feels that what is
happening on the campus of Western Michigan University “… represents an issue that takes
place nationwide on college and university campuses” and that “demolition of campus historic
buildings has been a challenge nationwide for decades” (Zipp, 2013). This research may assist
committees and university planning departments to take into consideration the opinions of others
- outside their groups - in the ultimate decision to restore, renovate, adapt or demolish. “Age plus
adaptivity is what makes a building come to be loved. The building learns from its occupants,

	

and they learn from it” (Brand, 1994, p. 23).

7

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Importance of a Union
American colleges were originally modeled after their English counterparts of Oxford
and Cambridge with the intention of training educated clergy and disciplined leaders. Education
was thought to combat ignorance, develop citizenship, and help teach future generations how to
govern and manage the New World (Knell & Latta, 2006). Augustus Hare, a student at Oxford,
founded a group in 1812 called the Attic Society. He believed that, “discussion was both the road
to truth and the only justification of university education” (Butts, 1971, p.1). Hare felt that
through discussion and debate, people could be unified and stimulated by understanding the
differences in men. Hare left Oxford and enrolled at Cambridge, hoping that he would find
more freedom for his newly formed society. By 1823, the first official union was founded at
Cambridge.
Because of the success of Hare and his Attic Society, three debate teams wanted to find a
consistent and common place to practice their debates, and bring groups together for discussions
– thus they created a union. The students built their own quarters in 1857, which included a
billiard room, reference library, dining room and offices (ACUI, n.d). This collaboration formed
the beginnings of the college union movement. It was found that unions:
…were dedicated to the idea of free discussion, open dialogue, and the essential
need to teach young men how to get along with their fellows…it became evident
that these debating societies were quite successful at training young men for
leadership and statesmanship…(Knell & Latta, 2006, p.3)

so were the student unions. In 1880 the Harvard Union was founded after Colonel Henry L.
Higginson, a Harvard graduate and founder of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, visited Oxford

8

	

Just as the universities in the United States were modeled after their British counterparts,

and stated, “We chose the name Union in the hope that out of the Debating Society, a large
general Society, like the Unions at Cambridge and Oxford would grow” ( p.9). Higginson in
1900 stated during his dedication for the building for which he donated money, “Perhaps you can
establish here, as at Oxford, an area, where you can thresh out the questions of the day…Let this
house stand a temple consecrated …to friendship”(Butts, 1971, p.10).
While the Unions were fledgling, debates were ongoing as to what a university should be
to its students. Discussion centered on whether universities should provide a liberal education or
a practical education. With the industrial age coming on full steam, a more practical education
was needed. Thus, the Morrill Federal Land Grant Act was passed in 1862. This act allowed
people from the industrial classes to obtain a liberal and practical higher education that focused
on agriculture and the mechanical arts.
Universities were also changing by becoming co-ed and developing social and academic
organizations - the beginnings of Greek life. Students also had the desire to help govern their
university and give a student’s perspective through publication productions. A place was needed
for all of these activities as well as a place to socialize. In 1896 America had its first Union
building, Houston Hall, located on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. It was
described in that year’s University Catalogue as a building that will “provide for all students of
the various departments a place where they may meet on common ground; and to furnish them
with every available facility for passing their leisure hours in harmless recreation and
amusement” (as cited in Knell & Latta, 2006. p. 10). This new building included a gymnasium,
swimming pool, bowling lanes, billiard room, and also had offices for various student

cafeteria (see Figure 1). The American School and University Yearbook stated in 1938:

9

	

organizations and rooms for reading, religious services, music classes, a darkroom and a

The basic objective was to organize under one ro of facilities which would make
T
t
u
possible a com
mmunity life for student and faculty members…
e
ts
y
…The ultima goal is
ate
to develop a community center with congenial ac
o
c
c
c
ccommodatio for every type of
ons
y
gr
roup activity save athlet that stud
y,
tic,
dents may ha the maxi
ave
imum opport
tunity for
th profitable cultivation of leisure tim and that the universi may cont
he
e
me,
t
ity
tinue to
be an authent community of teacher and studen (Butts, 1
tic
rs
nts.
1971. p.41)

Figure 1. Ho
F
ouston Hall, University of Pennsylv
vania. The f
first Union building bu in
uilt
the United States, (Befo 1910)
S
ore
Since Americ universit were bas on Engla
can
ties
sed
and’s Oxford and Cambr
d
ridge
Universit
ties, it is littl wonder th the archit
le
hat
tecture of the earlier unio embrace various fo
e
ons
ed
orms
of classic architectu styles su as Jeffer
cal
ural
uch
rsonian, Colo
onial Reviva and Colle
al,
egiate Gothic
c.
These sty are base on symme
yles
ed
etry, proport
tion, and a pr
rescribed set of rules abo form,
t
out
proportio and detail
on
ling (Knell & Latta, 2006). Many of the early de
f
esigns had c
classic geom
metry
of central entrance an symmetri wings re
nd
ical
esembling m
many of the h
homes of tha era.
at
Both World Wars change the face of American campuses. A
B
W
ed
After World War I, stud
d
dents
returning from battle had a differ perspect
g
rent
tive. They ha matured, been out in the world, a
ad
and
conseque
ently wanted more from campus life. Extracurri cular activit such as s
d
ties
sports, stude
ent
governm and com
ment
mmunity serv took on an importan role on cam
vice
nt
mpuses. The Union became
e

	

an even stronger com
s
mmunity cent for the ca
ter
ampus, a pla for both s
ace
students and faculty.
d

10

According to Knell and Latta (2006), a Union would also create a place for campus democracy
and also be a memorial for those who died for democracy.
When planning a building that will house a Union, many universities have facilities with
similar proposed functions and plans. A 1946 survey of 55 colleges and universities found the
following:
The Percentage of Unions which include facilities used primarily as headquarters
for student organizations and university service related to students:
90-99% - had committee or meeting rooms, offices either for student
organizations or university agencies
80-89% - office for members of union staff
60-69% - offices for alumni secretary, student government council, and student
publications
The Percentage of unions which include facilities used primarily for social
purposes
100% - lounges
90 – 99% - dance hall and general lounge
80- 89% - lounge for male students
70-79% - faculty club, smoking room
60-69% lounge for women students, reception room, terrace for lounging
Percentage of Unions which include facilities used primarily for cultural
purposes
70-79% - browsing library
50-59% dramatic society, art exhibit facilities, debating hall, rehearsal room

Percentage of Unions which include facilities used primarily for club
services and conveniences:
100% - information desk, rest rooms
90-99% - candy and cigarette counter, dining services, banquet hall, and public
telephone
80-89% - cafeteria, check rooms, dining room for private parties, lost and found
department
60-69% - barber shop, general dining room, information bureau, ticket bureau,
living quarters for transients, student supply store

11

	

Percentage of unions which include facilities for games
80-89% - game rooms, table tennis
60-69% - pocket billiards, straight rail billiards
50-59% – bowling alley, trophy room

50-59% - locker room for students, post office, living quarters for other than
transients, shoe shine stand, writing room. (Humphreys, 1946, pp.76-77)
This list gives a very good indication of what was valued in planning Union buildings that were
built before World War II. Understanding the rationalization of how the structures were
originally planned can provide input for planning committees who are designing renovations.
Many of the buildings built after World War II were designed in the style of American
Modernism. This style is similar to the International Style that was widely used by Walter
Gropius, Marcel Breuer, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Knell & Latta, 2006). These buildings
are a study of simplicity, using steel and wide expanses of glass that were not possible in an
earlier age. Gone were the intricate ornamental details. “Buildings were conceived as objects,
and, like sculptures, they were simply placed in the landscape” (Knell & Latta, 2006, p.12). This
style of design found its way into many of the renovations that occurred during the expansion of
campuses and Unions. While this style of architecture has a beauty of its own, the simplicity of
form may lose some of the personality and character. Quite often, limited colors for paints and
types of floorings are selected; details are eliminated. This is done in order to make maintenance
and navigation easier. While simplifying the interiors may make a building easier to maintain
and seem easier to navigate, the complexity of different levels and architecture create interest
and increases the ability for wayfinding. A good analogy is a parking garage that uses colors, or
even music to help people to remember on which floor they are parked.
By 1971 questions were being asked as to how the Union building could evolve and grow

Certainly it is a mistake in planning if the union is treated, as it still is on some
campuses, merely as a catch-all for just miscellaneous college needs, without
regard to their appropriateness in the union or without regard to implanting in the
union the core of activity essential to a good campus center. (Butts, 1971, p.131)

12

	

with the university. Students, faculty and the community were changing:

With colleges and universities growing larger and students living in more dispersed areas, it
became even more important that the Union should be considered the prime gathering spot on
campus in order to retain the sense of community.
According to Knell and Latta (2006) there are guidelines that a Union should encourage:


The union should be one of the campus’s primary landmarks with an architectural
character appropriate to the institution’s educational mission.



The style of the union should complement and contribute to the overall context of
the campus. The building should be comfortable with its neighbors.



The union and its programs should be an extension of the educational climate of
the institution.



The building should express the institution’s spirit and traditions.



The union should serve as the gathering place for the entire campus community.



The union should be at the core of creating and advancing the ideals of
community on campus and within its environs. (p.33)

The one word that is consistently repeated in literature regarding what a Union
exemplifies is community; the Union should act as the center of the university community.
Boyer and Mitgang (1996) state that the mission of the Union should be:

2006) however it may be more accurate to think of a university as a small town and the Union
building as its downtown.

13

	

In the context of higher education, the learning community begins with respect for
the rich resources each member brings to it. It rejects prejudicial or dogmatic
judgments, honors diversity; and seeks to serve effectively and empower the full
range of people in our society. Clear and civil language in all forms –written,
oral, and three dimensional representations – is also at the heart of a wellfunctioning community of learning. A healthy learning climate must be caring,
where every individual feels affirmed and where activities, inside and outside the
classroom are humane. Finally, learning communities are places of celebration,
where the traditions, purposes, and accomplishments of the institution are
regularly recalled and rituals are shared in a spirit of joy and common cause by all
members of the community. (p.91)
The Union building has often been referred to as “the Living Room”, (Knell & Latta,

A college or university is much like a small metropolis. The president and
trustees govern a college much as a local mayor and council oversee the affairs of
a small town. The central academic core of the college campus equates to the
central business district of a town or city. The daily flow of people to and from a
college campus resembles the dynamic comings and goings of a small town.
(Knell & Latta, 2006, p.50)
To encourage community life in a Union building, it is important to consider the traffic
pattern like a “main street” in a small city. Knell and Latta (2006) describe this “main street”
approach as a place where everyone is welcome; it has an energy that is drawn from its public
spaces (p.60). Just as a small town has one main thoroughfare, so should a Union building be
designed in a similar fashion. The core, or the main street, is where services, recreation, dining
facilities, meeting spaces and in some cases lodging is provided, all at one destination: the Union

	

(See Figure 2).

14

Figure 2. Circulation Pattern in a Union Fa
C
n
acility Creat
ting a Main Street

We need to re
W
emember tha we are par
at
rtners in edu
ucation; we n
need to be m
more than
passing partic
cipants in en
nhancing cam
mpus life. W need to re
We
ecognize tha campus
at
li is more th services and program and that w must be m
ife
han
ms
we
more than sh
hopping
se
ervices or se
ervice station We need to think ser
ns.
d
riously abou “The Role of the
ut
College Unio phrase th we are more than bui ldings and th we are a “well
C
on”
hat
hat
co
onsidered pl for comm
lan
munity life of the college (p.30)
e”.

15

	

ng
Accordin to Maul (1994):

Definition of Community
According to the Association of College Unions International College Union Idea (2012):
Researchers have long noted that students are more likely to be successful in
college when they feel a sense of place and are involved outside of the classroom.
The college union serves these needs, offering a home, a living room, where
individuals come together through activities and work, forming a community. It
supports the academic mission through the cocurricular experience, cultivating
student’s leadership, citizenship, and cultural competency and developing
alumni’s enduring loyalty to the institution. (p.1)
ACUI defines community as “a broad vision for campus life that allows all groups and
individuals to learn, grow and develop to their best potential in a challenging yet safe
environment” ( 2012). The Union is a place where the student can grow and develop, to
challenge traditions, accept differences, lifestyles, behaviors: it is a place where
“misunderstandings are dropped, and acceptance changes to respect, and ultimately a celebration
of cultures and differences” (ACUI, 2012). ACUI believes that the Union is a “campus
community builder” of which there are five elements:
1. Inclusiveness – The ability to confront the differences within yourself and the ability
to accept and transcend the differences in others.
2. Transformation versus conversion – It is the ability to know that everyone has their
own opinion: one opinion is not better than the other, just different. Transformation
“respects the rights of others to have their own opinions as well as the right of others
to change or not to change”.
3. Chaos and conflict are a natural part of the community-building process – the
evolution of understanding, accepting, and then celebrating differences.
4. An important key to community building is the individual community builder- a
person who is willing to manage the hurt and disappointment that comes with risk
taking and who understands that the process is not always easy.
5. Community building is a continual process. (ACUI, 2012; Maul 1994)
Sarason (1974) researched the concept of psychological sense of community (PSC) and

and poignant feature of life in our communities. Sarason went on to state that PSC is:

16

	

found that the absence or dilution of the psychological sense of community is the most frequent

…part of a readily available, mutually supportive network of relationships upon
which one could depend and as a result of which one did not experience sustained
feelings of loneliness that impel one to actions or to adopting a style of living
masking anxiety and setting the stage for later and more destructive anguish.
(1974, p.1)
In order to avoid a student from feeling that anguish of loneliness, it is important to
provide a variety of arenas where a sense of community can thrive. A sense of community can
be described as having a feeling of belonging, interdependence, being needed, and identification
with certain groups or people (Sarason, 1974). Lounsbury & DeNeui summarized Sarasons
findings by stating, “a strong sense of community is seen as countering loneliness and social
isolation” (p.270, 1995). McMillan & Chavis (1986) defines the sense of community as having
four elements:
1. Membership – the feeling of belonging and interconnectedness
2. Influence – knowing that each person matters to the group and contributes to the
group
3. Reinforcement – fulfillment of needs, that each members needs will be meet through
the “resources” received through being a member of the group
4. Shared emotional connection – members will share a common history of times and
places they have experienced as a group. (p.9)
Rullman,Van den Kleboom & Van Jura presented findings from a report based on a
Summit called the “Physical Place on Campus: a Summit on Building Community.” The
gathering of 50 higher education and industry leaders worked together to help encourage the
relationship between physical place and campus community. The assertions for the Summit
were:
Achieving campus community matters to higher education’s mission



Physical spaces provide experiences for students to practice living in and
contributing to community

17

	





Planning too often happens in silos that reflect professional boundaries and
reporting lines rather than what students do or should experience



Significant resources are spent on facilities planning, design, construction, and
management without knowing if our objectives and intended outcomes are
actually being met. (Rullman & Wahlquist, 2012, p.6)

The resulting discussions during the summit found:
1. When campus community exists in its strongest form, it is associated with
learning, civic purpose, and a sense of belonging. However, higher education
lacks a common definition or vocabulary to democratized participation in
facility planning and design, and transparent alignment between research,
educational goals, project implementation, and facility management.
2. Places of exceptional community are those that exhibit a high level of human
engagement and are imbued with evidence of human-to-human mutuality,
psychological safety and refuge, and a strong sense of individual and group
ownership. Students, in particular, often seek and develop places of
community where it is needed, rather than where it is administratively
intended; many times these places are surprisingly low tech and low cost but
highly customizable and fully satisfying to their users.
3. Although legitimate barriers to achieving physical community exist, more
sophisticated and willful campus leadership can overcome barriers such as
discipline-based, institutional, or association boundaries; navigation of
campus politics; or inarticulate justification for physical place and community.
The largest barrier, then, may be leadership. Overcoming barriers may simply
require a more courageous decision to lead through them rather than the
unlikely elimination of them. (Rullman, Van den Kieboom, and Van Jura,
2012, p.5)
The question was asked of the attendees of the summit, “What would it look like if
community were achieved in all the places desired”? The emergent themes were:
1. Engagement – Interaction is visible and palpable between people and groups
2. Bridging – Mutuality and commonality occurs between people who are
seemingly dissimilar

	

3. Layering – People can find personal refuge before moving into larger groups
and community
4. Agency – Individuals feel ownership for and believe they can modify space as
needed

18

5. Responsive – Space can morph, adapt, and change as needed throughout the
days and years
6. Distributed – Campus space is decentralized and distributed to optimize
access, convenience, scale, refuge, and personalization
7. Policies – Policies and restrictions that reduce user ownership and flexibility
are minimized
8. Gestalt – All elements (e.g. light fixtures, materials, diversity, sound, location,
activity) work together to create a functional “wholeness” that cannot be
created by only its parts. (Rullman et al., 2012, p.18)
It was also found that a definition of community is understood and valued differently by
various groups: faculty, students, staff, and guests (Rullman & Wahlquist, 2012, p.7). This can
cause different perspectives as to how a space should be designed and used. One ongoing
observation found that “flexibility, adaptability, responsiveness, and a sense of ownership may
be more important than the architecture, tradition, or permanence of campus facilities” (Rullman,
et al., 2012, p.27).
Oldenburg (1999) describes a relationship between the physical place and the effect of
place on human behavior that creates community. He describes three places in community: the
first is home, the second is work and the third is the social gathering place. The ‘third place’ as
Oldenburg refers to it, is the most important part of a community. He describes it as “informal
public gathering places where the main activity is conversation” (Santasiero, 2002, p. 10).
Santasiero interviewed Oldenburg about the importance of the third place on a university
campus, Oldenburg stated, “For most students today, college life is probably the closest thing to
community they’ll ever experience and college is the place to sell them on the idea“(Santasiero,

There’s a hierarchy in the traditional classroom that is not present in the third
place. The lack of structure and scheduled meeting times is a great leveler. All
can be equally heard…This kind of learning prepares them for civic and political

19

	

2002, p. 10). He explains his rationale:

life as well as all careers that require them to build relationships with others and
articulate themselves. (Santasiero, 2002, p. 12)
Santasiero (2002) asked Oldenburg how administrators could encourage more student interaction
outside of the classroom. Oldenburg stated that administrators should research where the
students have already found their third place. It may not be clean and new, but students feel
comfortable and have built tradition in these places. Providing a new space that is expansive and
easily cleaned may result in lack of use. Students need to feel ownership of the space.(p.13).
Sense of Place
Steele describes the word “place” as having a variety of meanings:
“Place” may be one of the most frequently used words in the English language. It
is used variously as a physical location (what places did you visit?), a
psychological state (I’m not in a good place right now), social status (people
should know their place), the location of something in one’s mind (I can’t quite
place it), a standard for evaluation (there’s a time and place for everything), and
on and on. (1981, p.5)
Place, in this context will be defined as physical location. Just as the word place has many
interpretations, so does each individual have a different and varied reaction to place. According
to Steele, “Each would experience a personal sense of place … stimulated by different feelings,
threats, and opportunities (1981, p.1). Steele continues to describe an individual’s reaction to a
place as being affected by not only the environments physical attributes, but:
… we must take into account the eyes, ears, intentions and moods of the persons
who are experiencing it. It is not a place in a vacuum: it is a setting in which
people may experience a sense of place, given the right conditions. (1981, p.4)
Steele (1981, p.12) describes the sense of place as a pattern of reactions from a person’s
expectation to a setting and the reactions to the physical characteristics of the setting (see Figure

	

3).

20

Surroundings
(Physical setting)
Setting + Person
(Psychological
factors)

Sense
of Place

Context
(Social setting)
Figure 3. Illustration of How a Sense of Place is an Interactional Concept.
People have preconceived ideas about how a place should look. If the environment does
not meet expectations, disappointment and a lack of interest will ensue; it will not have that
sense of place. According to Gordon (2010) if a person’s psychological needs are met, then a
sense of pride and belonging to a place will be achieved:
Research shows, for example, that a child’s sense of identity and belonging are
influenced positively by appropriately scaled and comfortable furnishings, lively
colors, and a homey feel. Students have a much greater pride of place in such an
environment and believe they are listened to and valued as individuals. (p.1)
Steele (1981) also describes a combination of physiognomies that give an environment or
location a special character as the “Spirit of Place” (p.13). If a building is non-descriptive and
does not have a strong image, or spirit of place, then it blends into obscurity, not creating a sense
of place; it is not a place that can help build memories.
Steele describes how universities may be eliminating that sense of place by the creation
or altering of structures:
In many instances, modern society is tending to destroy the rich variety of places,
replacing them with homogenized “efficient” settings that have no variety,
surprise, or traces of their own history and development. They may indeed be
efficient for certain tasks (such as crossing a city by expressway in a matter of
minutes, or providing a choice of five types of hamburger), but they offer minimal
returns compared with the traditional impact of places as providers of many levels
of meaning and experience. (1981, p.8)

World War II campuses grew and spread to accommodate the growing student body. Another

21

	

Before World War II, the center of social life on campus was the Union building. After

growth surge happened after the baby boomers went to college in the 1960s. As each growth
spurt affected the university, so it affected the growth of the Union building. The buildings
needed to expand, functions changed and renovations forever changed the face of the Union
building.
As previously stated, the Union building could be considered as the downtown of a
college or university campus. A Union building that recreates a downtown environment could
generate a sense of place for students and the varied organizations that occupy the building; it
can create heritage. James (2001) states: “A sense of place results gradually and unconsciously
from inhabiting a landscape over time, becoming familiar with it physical properties, accruing
history within its confines” (p.1). Since a Union building can be considered the town square of
the university, it should reflect that sense of heritage that a downtown represents.
In contrast, post-World War II urban sprawl created communities which are typically
without a downtown or centralized group of services, recreation, and lodging or shopping.
Oldenburg (1999) described life in the post-World War II subdivision in this way.” Life in the
subdivision may have satisfied the combat veteran’s longing for a safe, orderly, and quiet haven,
but it rarely offered the sense of place and belonging that rooted his parents and
grandparents”(p.4). This suburban community has a feeling of disconnection – it does not have
that sense of place. Oldenburg (1999) refers to the main street of a small town in pre-World War
II where the architecture provided benches and stairs that encouraged citizens to sit along the
main street and talk. It is hard to feel a connection to a place that does not strive to build its own
community identity, cultural resource, or heritage. According to Cox, ”The historic downtown

	

center can become a valuable existing resource and serve as a symbol of community stability”
(2000, p.4).

22

Understanding what students, faculty and alumni expect and want for their environments
will help campus planners, interior designers and architects create spaces students and faculty
will want to use, and create memories in; thus creating a sense of heritage. An environment
strong in a sense of place creates those memories. Having good memories will encourage
students to stay affiliated with their alma mater, and hopefully be generous with endowments. It
is important to understand what creates a sense of place - especially to students since they will be
the future alumni and even faculty. According to Steele, “We need to create richer settings and
use existing ones more effectively and generally improve their contributions to our lives” (1981,
p.8). Steele also reflects on the traces of history in an environment:
A city that shows evidence of development and change over several different
periods is likely to stimulate several place responses: memories, fantasies, mood
changes, recognition in visitors(from general knowledge of its history), and so on.
This is why I believe that a city that does have a heritage of buildings, parks and
other structures from earlier eras should be protected from wholesale leveling
because of inherent value of the buildings themselves. (p.158)
The spirit of place is in the details of a structure. It is the moldings, trims, stained glass
windows, gothic arched windows, patterned tiles on the floor, the ivy covering the brick.
Memories can be evoked by visual cues (Steele, 1981). When settings have strong features and
identifiable characteristics the memories will be strong. If a structure is bland and lacks
identifiable characteristics, memories of that setting may not be as strong.
The Architectural Firm of Pond and Pond
Irving Kane Pond (1857-1939) and Allen Marlitt Pond (1858-1929) were brothers and the
principal architects of the Chicago architectural firm of Pond and Pond. Both were born and

Michigan in Civil Engineering and worked in various architectural firms as a draftsman. He
gained his initial architectural indoctrination at the Chicago offices of William Le Baron Jenney

23

	

educated in Ann Arbor Michigan. Irving Pond received a degree from the University of

and Solon S. Berman. During the time Irving Pond worked at Berman, he gained invaluable
experience with brick detailing and craftsmanship that is evident in his future designs (“Essential
architecture”; Pond, n.d.). Irving was the artistic and creative brother. In 1886 he joined his
brother, Allen to create the Pond and Pond architectural firm (Zukowski, 2011).
Allen Pond was the more studious and civic minded brother. He was the one that initially
moved to Chicago to work as an architect. As the founding brother of the Pond and Pond
Architectural firm, he controlled the everyday business and was extensively involved in various
aspects of social education. He aligned himself with various organizations that helped people
with disabilities and the poor. For example, the Hull House Settlement, located in Chicago
Illinois, was a group of buildings, with the exception of the original home, that was designed by
the Pond brothers and constructed to help the large immigrant population of Chicago to
assimilate into a new country, and a new way of life. Allen Pond was a very close friend of Jane
Addams, who, along with Ellen Gates Starr founded the Hull House Settlement in 1889 (Hull
House, 2006). They based the concept on Toynbee Hall located on the East End of London
which in 1885 was founded to be a center of social reform. Toynbee Hall is still in existence
today and according to their website:
Toynbee Hall aims to be the place where people come for excellent local services
and where they can share ideas and experience, gather information and knowledge
that we use together to take action to change lives and eradicate poverty in the
UK. (Toynbee Hall, 2012)
Addams stated that as a University has a place for men to gather and socialize so should those
who are less fortunate have the same capability to attend a place to socialize and learn (Polikoff,

According to Zukowski (2011), it is stated that, “Allen repeatedly expressed the opinion
that architecture, unlike the more ephemeral arts of music, literature and theater, and the less

24

	

1999).

conspicu
uous arts of painting and sculpture, co
p
ould greatly influence th human sp
y
he
pirit.” Many of
the struct
tures the Pon brothers designed we designate to be used for educatio and socia
nd
d
ere
ed
d
on
al
reform. Among the li of structu that are credited to t
A
ist
ures
their firm are
e:


The Hull House (Chic
cago, IL, see Figure 4)
e



The Chica Commons (Chicago IL)
ago
o,



City Club of Chicago (Chicago, IL)
b



Michigan Union (Ann Arbor, MI)
n
n
)



Michigan League (An Arbor, MI)
n
nn



Perdue Un
nion (Lafaye IN)
ette,



Michigan State Memo
n
orial Union (East Lansin MI)
(
ng,



Kansas Memorial Union (Lawren KS)
M
nce,

Figure 4. Hu House Designed by the Pond an Pond Architectural firm. (2012 The
F
ull
t
nd
2
Soci Welfare History Pro
ial
oject, 1920)
)

	

Pond and Pon inventiv architectu such as t Hull Hou is known for its
nd’s
ve
ure,
the
use,
n
exception
nally well-de
etailed crafts
smanship, as well as its i
s
influence on turn-of-the-century
n

25

architectural modernism. Pond and Pond's buildings also rank among the best examples of Arts
& Crafts, but in many instances, the design is blended with the Collegiate Gothic style of
architecture in such a way, that it represents an iconic perception of what a university building of
the time should look like. Irving Pond (1905) stated:
…architecture is a personal art and it is the individuality, shown in the composing
and balancing of masses of solid and void, ornament and surface, color and
texture, line and form, which makes a work of architecture instinct with life,
which vivifies forms old and new, which gives to the new the right and power to
exist and which has been known to raise academic forms from the dead. It is
individuality alone, a comprehending, deep-feeling personality, which breathes
into architecture the breath of life. (p. 160)
When the Union buildings were designed on the campuses of Purdue University,
University of Michigan, and Michigan State University, society and social ethics were
completely different than they are today. Some Union buildings did not allow women to enter
the building unless it was a social occasion, while other Union buildings were co-ed from the
beginning. Among some Unions you had to be a member to use the facilities; while other
Unions allowed everyone entrance. Pond (1931) wrote regarding the design of a Union
Building that:
Every man’s Union has to be planned to accommodate women and every
women’s League must be planned in reference to the accommodation of men. In
a man’s building the very minimum of accommodation for women may quite
properly be provided; while in a woman’s building the maximum of
accommodations must be provided for men. For men will gather in clubs and
enjoy themselves without the presence of women, while women, especially
college girls, find their enjoyment greatly enhanced by the presence of men or
boys. There are psychological as well as sociological problems to be considered
in planning a college social center. (p.771)
Although this approach to programming the design of a Union building may be laughable

planned and used. A clear understanding of social mores of the time is needed to comprehend the

26

	

and archaic today, this thinking dictated how a Union building before World War II was to be

function and rationale behind the original design. Pond (1931) lists factors that had to be
considered when programming the design of the building:


Lobbies
o Location and quantity of lobbies will be determined by the size of the University
o Main Lobby should be on the main floor and convenient to the main office
counter with cashier, information desk, phone and telephone operator, coat check
and rest rooms
o Special Lobbies should be provided on each floor with separate rooms for men
and women
o The Women’s rest room should have room for a retiring couch



Offices
o Two to three sets should be provided




One should be for the management of the building, another for the kitchen
and staff, while another should be for the governing student body and
student staff that run the Union activities and functions

Lounges and Dining Rooms
o If the Union is coeducational there should be one lounge for men only and one for
women only – a common area between the two lounges should be provided for
commingling
o A dining area should be located near the lounge
o Folding walls are not recommended but may be necessary to adjust room sizes
o A cafeteria should be provided within easy access to street and to the kitchen



Assembly Room
o Should not be too large – needs to have a personal feel
Library
o Usually is a memorial room

	



o Should be a place for quiet study with adequate light

27



Theatre
o Separate entrance from the street
o Check room and ticket office
o 250 – 700 seats



Kitchens



Game Rooms
o Bowling alleys
o Billiard room
o Toilet rooms should be easily accessible and close to the barber shop



Bedrooms
o Must have adjacent bathroom
o Must be varying sizes for one or two beds
o Should have cement floors with rugs



Service Rooms
o Help must be provided with showers, locker room, rest room and cafeteria
o Professional help and student help must be separate
o Storage room for furnishings, cold storage for perishables

Union Buildings Designed by Pond and Pond
Purdue Memorial Union.
th

At the turn of the 20 century the students of Purdue University, located in West

students and faculty. George O. Hayes of the class of 1912 was the first to suggest the idea of
building a Union (Purdue; Purdue union history, 2012). As a result, the Class of 1912 decided

28

	

Lafayette Indiana, claimed a room above Southworth’s Bookstore as the place to meet with other

that instead of the traditional class gift, they would start a fund drive to raise monies to build the
Union. The fund was seeded by the contribution of each senior donating five dollars. The
original thought was that money would first go towards completion of the Memorial Gymnasium
and the remainder of the money would go to a Union building:
A constitution was prepared and approved at a mass meeting of students and
faculty on April 17, 1912. A financial Campaign Committee consisting of
students, faculty, alumni, the University President and a trustee was formed. The
fund continued to grow until World War I. (Purdue; Purdue union history, 2012)
The idea of building a Union was halted until after the war ended. Four thousand thirteen
Purdue students had served in the war and 67 had died (Purdue university; Purdue union history,
2012). Thus the name Purdue Memorial Union was established. The story is told that on
Armistice Day, the first anniversary of the end of World War I, there was another mass meeting
to ask for student pledges; the students locked the doors and would not let anyone leave the
meeting until each person had made a pledge (Purdue; Purdue union history, 2012). To this day
a bronze plaque exists on the main floor with the name of each person that pledged one hundred
dollars or more and satisfied that pledge prior to 1947. The 1928 Yearbook for the University
notes:
The Purdue Memorial Union is typical of the spirit of the University – the spirit of
democracy and good fellowship and a proper combination of work and play. It is
the oasis of cultural and aesthetic ideas in the midst of a desert of technical
laboratories. Although the Purdue Campus contains some one hundred
organizations, the Purdue Memorial Union stands alone in its service to the
faculty, student body, and alumni of the University. (Purdue memorial Union,
Debris, C. Antle (Ed.), 1928)
The architectural firm of Pond and Pond was selected to design the building in 1921.

the ‘massive foundation’ of man’s life - his emotions. Psychology teaches that a refined,
restrained and noble architectural beauty will uplift the emotional life” (Purdue, Architecture,

29

	

Pond believed that the Union “must provide an environment in which social activities can train

2012). Construction began on June 13, 1922. “In August of 1923, a crowd watched cranes put
25-ton sections of milled limestone in place to form arches over the main entrance of the
building”(Purdue; Purdue union history, 2012). At the dedication ceremony, Pond stated:
…The completed structure was an expression of ‘poise and physical and spiritual
strength and firmness shot through and modified by spiritual aspiration.’ Its
purpose was twofold. First, the broad, simple and harmonious masses of the
building would proclaim to the world the freedom and unity of life found within.
Second, the many architectural details and ornaments inside and out would
minister to the unified life by symbolizing the harmonious interplay of structural
forces and hence an ordered society. (Purdue, Architecture, 2012)
Many of the details in the building have meaning:


The stained glass windows represent the mixing of students of all races and creeds
within its walls



The interior stone arches represent the ruggedness, sincerity and individualism of the
students



The upswept arches of the windows symbolize the youth and spirit of the Union



The gold and black cross on the floor of the Great Hall honors the 67 Purdue men
who gave their lives for their country during World War I. It has since been extended
to honor all Purdue faithful who lost their lives in service to the United States of
America. (Purdue, Architecture, 2012)

In 1924 after the original funds were depleted, a loan for $200,000 was secured by the
university stipulating that each student should pay a fee of four dollars per semester (Purdue;
Purdue union history, 2012). The partially completed building opened on September 9, 1924.
At that time, the University consisted of 323 faculty and staff and 3,234 students. The sizable
sum of $400,000 was still needed for completion. With the necessity of borrowing money, there
arose the large question of a reliable plan for procuring and repaying the sum. In 1929, it was

Through their financial resources, bonds were issued to acquire the money needed for

30

	

deemed necessary and appropriate that the building be deeded to the trustees of the University.

completion. The student fee, started in 1924, was continued to offer necessary financial security
(Purdue; Purdue union history, 2012).
The building opened in 1924 with the first floor being the only useable space. It had
temporary pine flooring, and unplastered walls and ceilings. According to the Purdue website,
the following is a listing of the spaces of the original building and a comparison of what is now
located in the spaces (see Table 1):
Table 1. Comparison of Purdue Union original room locations to what is located in space in
2013
Original Building

Today

Ground Floor – Cafeteria

Union Commons



Designed to serve 1,000 people/meal



Weekly meal tickets were $4.50



Served 240,000 in its first year

Soda Fountain/Sweet Shop

TV Dining room

Billiard Room

Sweet Shop

Barbershop

Evans Eye Care

Beauty shop (1929)
Main Floor
Great Hall

Main Lounge



Informal gathering space



Official memorial area for those
who served and lost their lives
Room 118

Three Reception Rooms

Card Office

	

Men’s Lounge

31

Table 1. (cont’d)


One for men

Room 132



One for women

Room 136



One for general use

Assembly Room
Second Floor (completed in 1929)
Alumni Faculty Lounge

East Faculty Lounge

Women’s Lounge


Included a kitchenette

Student Activity Rooms
In 1929 a wing, housing a 60 room Union Club Hotel was built. In 1936 the South
Ballroom was enlarged and another wing was constructed which housed a browsing library,
bowling alley, and the Anniversary Drawing Room (Purdue, Architecture, 2012).
At the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Purdue Memorial Union a new statement of

…to enrich the quality of life on campus and to build community amongst the
diverse members of the University family - students, faculty, staff, alumni and
guests - by inviting them to participate in formal programs and informal
opportunities to gather, study, work, develop and have fun.
…to support the public service aspect of Purdue's Land Grant mission by
providing conference facilities and services that bring the University into helpful
contact with the outside world.
…to use its facilities and resources to offer the services, conveniences and
amenities needed by the campus community, while achieving the financial
viability necessary to support both daily operations and long-term maintenance of
facilities.
The Union stands as a permanent memorial to the Purdue men and women
who served in defense of their country, protecting the very freedoms that we
enjoy today. It is our duty and privilege to maintain the union as a point of
identification with the University and its traditions, as a community landmark,

32

	

purpose was adopted. It states:

and as a symbol of the unity of spirit that transcends our individual differences.
(Purdue; Purdue union history, 2012)
Michigan State University.
The need for a Union on Michigan State’s campus was first recognized early in the
twentieth century. The class of 1915 initiated the drive to build a Union by dedicating money for
its construction. After World War I the Michigan Agricultural College (MAC) Association, with
assistance from alumni, faculty, staff, administration and the governor (an alumnus of the
University of Michigan) made the construction of the Union possible. They were able to raise
$130,000 to build the Union as a memorial not only for the MAC soldiers in WWI but also the
soldiers of previous wars. It was to be called Michigan Agricultural College Union Memorial
Building.
In order to save on costs, it was decided that students and faculty would dig the
foundation themselves. It took one week, 5,000 yards of dirt (weighing 13,500,000 pounds),
2,000 frankfurters and rolls, one barrel of cider, 14 bushels of apples, 150 gallons of coffee, 70
quarts of cream, and 30 pounds of sugar (Widder, 1925). Even with the sweat equity and
fundraisers, more money was needed to complete the building. Governor Alex J. Groesbeck
worked with the legislature to authorize a sale of bonds. Once the funds were attained, the
architectural firm of Pond and Pond was hired.
In 1925, the doors opened to the Union. The building was 81,724 square feet, with the
main floor dedicated mainly to space for individual activities which included a newspaper stand,
a common cafeteria, a men’s cafeteria, a women’s lounge and a restroom. The second and third

a men’s lounge, and sixteen guest rooms with their own private bath for lodging. The fourth

33

	

floor were designated for group activities providing meeting rooms, a ballroom, a billiard room,

floor was designated for management offices, while the basement contained a barbershop, a
beauty shop, a boot black stand, and lavatories.
During the construction of the Union, Michigan Agricultural College became Michigan
State College (MSC). The Union was self-supporting, non-profit, employed 50 students, and
didn’t require an endowment for operation. The final cost to build the Union was $443,149, or
$6.15 per square foot. Over the years there were three additions to the building to accommodate
the changing needs of the students and the use of space within the Union. In 1936, an addition
provided an East Wing that added 30,047 square feet at a cost of $85,120, or $4.00 a square foot.
It was during this renovation that the college secured ownership when $150,000 was acquired
from the Works Progress Administration (Stanford & Dewhurst, 2002, p. 64). In 1949, a
868,897 square feet addition was added at a cost of $2,362,125, or $26.67 a square foot. The
1949 renovation included a large living room, a women’s study room, bowling alley, a grill,
which became the most popular hangout on campus, and the billiard room was relocated to the
basement. The new addition’s architecture was very different from the original Collegiate
Gothic. The style was contemporary, using blond wood paneling and plain details instead of the
original dark oak and walnut ornate details.
During the era of the 1949 renovation, there was a story of an African-American student
that complained to President John Hannah that he was told he could not get a haircut at the
Union barbershop. The student indicated that the barber was nice enough but said, “we don’t cut
black people’s hair.’ John Hannah said, ‘Come with me,’ walked to the Union barbershop, and
said, ‘we’d like haircuts.’ He sat in one chair and the student sat in another chair and the barber

	

said, ‘I never cut a black person’s hair.’ Hannah said, ’It’s time to learn,’ the student got a
haircut” (Thomas, 2008, p.56).

34

In 1980 major interior renovations made the building handicap-accessible by adding
ramps and an elevator. The grill became a food court that added fast food restaurants and a gift
shop. Much of the original interior dark oak paneling was removed and replaced with vinyl
wallcovering and medium stained oak paneling and trim. The renovation cost $670,000 with a
square foot cost of $174.64 ("MSU physical plant facilities," 2012).
Replacing the windows and making the building energy efficient was a focus of the
renovation in 1997. The Gothic wood tracery windows in the ballroom were removed and the
windows were replaced with limestone.
University of Michigan.
In 1904 the University of Michigan did not have a dormitory system. The students lived
in hundreds of different houses that were spread throughout the city of Ann Arbor. A decision
was made to build a Union that would be one central location for only male students to assemble.
Female students were only allowed entry during special events and then only through a side door
rather than the main front door. In order to build the Union, monies were raised by fundraisers
and drives that were initiated by the University’s President, Harry Burns Hutchins. He was
authorized to take as much time as needed to raise money for the endeavor. Students also helped
raise money by organizing musical comedies that were written, composed, produced and acted
by all male students (Peckham, 1994).
The original estimate to construct the building was $300,000 and eventually increased to
$1,000,000. Furnishings alone were estimated at $100,000 and $250,000 was allotted for an
endowment. It was decided that the University Buildings and Grounds Department would act as

1914 there were 4,000 members and in 1918 it was decided that all male students automatically

35

	

the contractor. The Union was to be run as a club; each member paid dues of $2.50 per year. By

would became members, and were to pay dues of $5.00 annually. With the onset of World War I,
many of the promised pledges were halted, causing the interior to remain incomplete. During the
war, the unfinished pool area became the barracks for 800 soldiers and a mess hall for 4,000.
With the aid of a loan of $260,000 from the Michigan War Preparedness Board, the building was
completed after the war. When the Union was complete in 1919, the seven-story red brick tower
and four-story structure exceeded the budget by $500,000 and the pool area still was not
completed. The pool was finished in 1925 at an additional cost of $61,500 (Peckham, 1994).
In the original design the first floor had two large lounges, a main reception desk, offices
for management and two small dining rooms that opened onto the main dining room which
included an open terrace. The rooms were designed with tile floors set in a basket weave pattern
and the walls were covered with raised oak paneling, giving the rooms a feeling of austerity. The
second floor housed the Pendleton Library, a billiard room which contained twenty-two tables
and a two-story ballroom. Three private dining rooms with moveable walls were located off the
ballroom so that it could be enlarged. The third floor contained offices and committee rooms for
various student organizations. Guest rooms and a large lounge occupied the fourth floor. The
basement housed a large barbershop and a cafeteria called The Tap Room, which became the
most popular place for the male students to gather (Shaw, 2011).
In 1936 and 1938 two wings were added to the original building. These additions very
closely followed the original architectural style and created a place for a University Club, a
lounge for faculty and 124 additional guest rooms. In 1954 a $2,900,000 addition followed the
original architectural style on the exterior, but used a more contemporary interior concept, such

	

as the use of blond-paneled wainscoting. In 1996 the fourth floor of the Union, where guest

36

rooms originally were located, was transformed into office space for student organizations, a
shared workroom, and a mirrored dance rehearsal room.
One major issue that caused friction: women were not allowed to use the front door. It is
rumored that the Student Council President of 1918, Steven S. Atwood, requested that it be off
limits to women. In 1932, an anonymous letter arrived at the Union from a disgruntled mother
asserting that she was insulted because she could not use the same doors as her sons who were
attending the university. Women were allowed through the front doors on every other building
on campus; however, the centerpiece building for the university made her enter from a secondary
entrance. It wasn’t until 1951, that women were allowed through the front doors. The billiard
room was still off limits until 1969 (Shaw, 2011). A separate Union building for women
students called The Michigan League was built in 1929; Pond and Pond were also the architects.
Types of Renovation - Stylistic Unit Theory versus Conjunctive Theory
Many of North America’s Universities are facing the same problem – what to do with the
aging Union buildings on campus? Technological advancements and changes in how students are
taught, study, and live have prompted many facility management and planning departments to
look at the future of the buildings in a new way (McRobbie, 2009; Hewitt, 1994; Langston,
Wong, Hui & Shen, 2008). How should the criteria be determined as to whether the buildings
will be demolished, renovated or be considered for adaptive reuse potential? How important is it
to faculty, students, and alumni that renovation be considered before demolition in order to

Frank Lloyd Wright, in designing and building Taliesin, was always
experimenting, always adding on or replacing sections. How do you preserve a
changed and changing building? What is the accurate historical building?
Buildings like Mount Vernon or those in Salem Pioneer Village are
historical artifacts that have been converted to museums that people come to see
as they were. The interiors are as fixed as the exteriors. There is still the problem

37

	

preserve the local culture, historical heritage and the environment? Audrain (2011) states:

that some parts have to be replaced from time to time, but the structures use never
changes. Many churches fall into this category, insofar as the kind of interior use
is constant, although there are minor changes to be dealt with as people and
practices change.
However, college campuses and their buildings are living, evolving
entities that must change over time. While some dormitory, classroom, and office
buildings may, like churches, have a relatively constant use and not present much
difficulty in terms of historical continuity, when it becomes necessary to convert a
structure from residential to office use or update a research laboratory,
“preservation” takes on a quite different form. (p.22)
Once a building has been slated for renovation, the next step is to determine the type of
renovation. There are two types of renovation that can establish the direction of the design. The
first is stylistic unit theory that stipulates that there should be a clear distinction between the old
and the new. In the stylistic theory approach, it is felt that all periods in history have contributed
to the overall design, making a continuous documentation that should be studied and preserved.
This approach to renovation was popular during much of nineteenth century and had resurgence
in the mid-twentieth century (Hewitt, 1994). This type of renovation is also referred to as antiscrape. This philosophy of preservation seeks to retain and preserve the original architectural
features as well as any past alterations as they are, contending that each style has its own value
and merit. Ruskin (1859) describes restoration as:
... the most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of
which no remnants can be gathered; a destruction accompanied with false
description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this
important matter; it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore
anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture. (p. 161)
Following is the only philosophy endorsed by United States Secretary of the Interior’s

…the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or
alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving
those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic,
architectural, and cultural values. (Weeks, 2001).

38

	

Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is defined as:

According to the National Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, there are four treatments to consider:
1. Preservation – this preserves the historic integrity of the building to show the
buildings continuum over time. It is respectful of any changes and alterations that
may have been made to the structure.
2. Rehabilitation – addresses the issue of historical materials that may have deteriorated
over time. Retention and repair is preferred but replacement of deteriorated elements
is acceptable but should be consistent with the historical characteristic.
3. Restoration – emphases is on retention of materials from the most significant time in
the property’s history and allows removal of materials from other periods.
4. Reconstruction – ability to re-create a non-surviving structure in all new materials.
(Weeks, 2001)
Ruskin (1859) eloquently states:
Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build forever. Let it not be for the
present delight, nor for the present use alone; let it be such work as our
descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a
time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have
touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labor and wrought
substance of them, “See! This our fathers did for us.” For indeed, the greatest
glory of a building is not in its stones, or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age, and in
that deep sense of voicefulness, of stern watching, of mysterious sympathy, nay,
even of approval or condemnation, which we feel in the walls that have long been
washed by the passing waves of humanity. (p. 155)
An example of the stylistic theory or preservation can be seen at the Purdue Union. In
1958 a new addition was built that included a corridor that led to the newly built Stewart Center
(Purdue, 2006) designed in mid-century modern. The existing adjoining corridor retained the
original collegiate gothic style. There is a clear distinction between the old section of the

	

building and the new (see Figure 5).

39

Figu 5. Exam
ure
mple of stylis and anti-scrape the
stic
eories. Orig
ginal Purdue University
e
y
corr
ridor leadin from orig
ng
ginal buildin into Stew
ng
wart Center.
For inte
erpretation of the referen
f
nces to color in this and a other figu
all
ures, the read is referre to
der
ed
th electronic version of t thesis.
he
this
Jo
okilehto (1985) quotes Cesare Brand who was the first Italian director of the Italian
C
di,
n
Central Institute of Restoration in Rome:
R
n
Restoration consists of th preservatio of the ma
R
he
on
aterial of a w
work of art an it aims
nd
at the re-estab
t
blishment of the potentia unity of th work of ar so far as p
f
al
he
rt
possible
without comm
w
mitting an ar
rtistic or hist
toric falsifica
ation. A fun
ndamental pr
reco
ondition for restoration is the recogn
i
nition and de
efinition of a object as a work of
an
ar by consid
rt,
dering its aes
sthetic and historic aspec Restorat
h
cts.
tion is the m
method for
tr
ransmitting the work of art to the fut
t
a
ture. (p.7)
The second th
T
heory, conju
unctive theory requires th the renov
ry,
hat
vation appea seamless
ar
between the old and the new (He
t
ewitt, 1994). One argum for the c
ment
conjunctive t
theory is tha
at
each buil
lding has its own charact and “intr
ter
rinsic heritag that refle cultural values
ge”
ects
Th Victorian era theory i also referr to
his
n
is
red

	

(Langston, C. Wong, F., Hui, E. & Shen, L., 2008).
,

as the scr
rape method According to Brand, the scrape m
d.
g
t
method can be described a “tear off t
e
as
the

40

plaster to expose ancient stones (even if they were plastered originally)” (1994, p. 94). The
scrape theory endorses taking the structure as it currently exists, and restoring it to its original
style, even if it means taking artistic license to make it appear as what it is thought to have
looked like. Dupont (1966) asks the question of how an historical structure that has had many
alterations and additions be maintained:
Monuments as a rule, have been repaired and enlarged throughout the ages, a fact
that creates considerable embarrassment when the original parts and the modified
sections need to be restored. Should we neglect the latter and reestablish the
original unity of style, or must we restore the whole and maintain the later
modifications? (p. 13)
He answered his own question by stating that one should observe the components of the structure
and determine their intrinsic value.
Viollet-le-duc (1860) was a great proponent of the scrape method of restoration. He
stated:
Let us therefore thoroughly examine our methods and the customary forms of our
architecture, and see whether we have not gone astray-whether everything has not
to be commenced anew-if we would discover that Architecture of our time which
is so loudly called for even by those who deprive us of the only means by which it
could be produced. (p.470)
A good example of this style can be found at the Union building on the campus of Purdue
University. According to T. Clayton, Assistant Director of the Purdue Memorial Union, when a
section of the corridor needed to be enclosed, the wall and floor finishes were specified as
closely as possible to the original design (personal communication, October 15, 2012. See figure

	

6 & 7).

41

Fi
igure 6. Exa
ample of co
onjunctive th
heory. Orig
ginal Purdue University corridor
e
y

	

Fig
gure 7. Example of con
njunctive theory. Renov
vated Purdu Universit corridor
ue
ty

42

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study focused on qualitative research since it sought to understand people’s
perception and value attached to the retention of historical architectural elements of a structure.
The data retrieved from the research is subjective since it is the opinions and interpretations of
people. The following chapter will describe the research design and rationale for utilizing a case
study methodology, data collection and analysis methods.
Research Design and Rationale
The research design was based on previous research conducted by Lindberg, Garling
Montgomery and Waara. Their research explored the relationship between housing attributes,
beliefs and values. The research explored how different housing attributes are valued and how
these values might vary across age, sex, marital status, and the size of the home town of the
respondents. The goal of their study was to “investigate the psychological basis of subjective
evaluations of different housing quality by relating them to the individual’s underlying belief
system and value structure” (2008, p. 81). A similar style of study was conducted by Coolen and
Hoekstra to determine the correlation of motivational factors such as value, goals and the
preferences for housing selections (2001). Each of these studies’ utilized a means-end theory to
analyze the data retrieved from the interviews.
The objective of this study is to understand the value people have to visual attributes of a
structure. The first section of the interview contained demographic questions to determine the
age, sex, race, education, and affiliation with the university. The second section centered on the
importance of a Union building. These questions were based on guidelines suggested by Knell
and Latta. The third section focused on whether alterations to specific components of a structure

43

can change the expectations or reaction of a person to a setting which can affect the sense of
place as suggested by Steele (1981) and ultimately affect community as suggested by Rullman,
Ven den Kleboom & Van Jura (2012). The instrumentation used was an interview rather than a
survey. Interviews were conducted with participants to allow for a more in-depth approach.
A case study methodology was used for the research since it can focus on one aspect of a
structure rather than the whole structure. Case Studies are used when the questions to be
answered are “how and why”. These types of questions are best for this type of research since
they are “explanatory” rather than “exploratory” (Yin, 2009). Another advantage of a case study
is that research is done in natural conditions and the circumstances can be understood in a
realistic situation (Key, 1997; Yin, 2009).
Qualitative Research.
The advantage of qualitative research is that it allows for a more comprehensive
overview of a situation regarding values, perceptions and interpretations. It also uses subjective
information rather than setting pre-defined variables, taking into account different variables and
the interactions of those variables. The research can be flexible and emergent rather than static.
Since this research is about the values individuals perceive about the retention of a building,
qualitative research is an appropriate approach. It places importance on the impact that opinions
and values have and seeks to understand by taking those values into account (Key, 1997; Yin
2009).
The disadvantage of qualitative research is that this type of research is subjective and
there are difficulties in the validity of the information. Researcher prompted prejudice can be
another issue. The best way to prevent both the bias and validation issues is to keep detailed
records, constantly monitor the observations, and to record accurately (Key, 1997).

44

Case Study Selection.
The research design utilized a case study approach that focused on three Union buildings
that were designed by the architectural firm of Pond and Pond on the campuses of Purdue
University, Michigan State University, and the University of Michigan. Each building was
designed by the same architectural firm, built at approximately the same time, for similar
purposes and each had undergone numerous renovations. It was found that each university
approached renovations in different ways. One university retained almost all of the historical
features, while another completely obliterated any ties with the past, and the third retained many
of the historical architectural features while integrating an eclectic contemporary design. These
different approaches to renovations made these three Union buildings a preferred case study.
Case studies are favored when examining contemporary issues and are unique in that they deal
with a wide variety of evidence, documents, artifacts, interviews and observations (Yin, 2009,
p11). This case study will show the perceptions of how students, alumni, staff and faculty value
the retention of historical integrity of the university structures.
Participants.
The majority of those interviewed were alumni, about 40.00% (n=12) followed by
students at 36.67% (n=11), then faculty/staff at about 20.00% (n=6), and 3.33% (n=1) were
guests to the University (see Figure 8).

45

Fig
gure 8. Perc
centage Dist
tribution of Interview P
f
Participants Relationsh to MSU
s
hip
The majority of people in
T
nterviewed were in the ag range of 18-28 at 37% (n=11), th
w
ge
%
he
next largest group wa in the 29-39 age range (n=8, 27% The predo
as
e
%).
ominant gender interview
wed
ale,
st57% (n=17 A large majority of th people int
7).
m
he
terviewed in terms of rac
ce
was fema at almos
were Non
n-Hispanic White at alm 87% (n=
W
most
=26). All res
spondents ha completed high schoo
ad
ol,
with 30% (n= 9) having attained at the minim
%
mum of a Ba
achelor’s deg
gree. For the students
e
interview the antic
wed,
cipated degr desired upon graduat
ree
u
tion from MS varied: A
SU
Accounting,
,
Human Biology, Crim
B
minal Justice Psycholog Biochem
e,
gy,
mistry, Comm
munication, B
Bachelor of Arts,
Interior Design, Dietetics, Marke
D
eting and Eco
onomics wit a Spanish minor, Anth
th
hropology, a
and
one with no response The averag number of years all re
e.
ge
o
espondents i
interviewed had lived in
campus housing is ab
h
bout two yea (see Tabl 2).
ars
le

46

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Scio-Demographic Characteristics
Demographics

Frequency

Percent

n=30
Age
18-28

11

37%

29-39

8

27%

40-50

2

7%

51-65

8

27%

Over-65

1

3%

Male

13

43%

Female

17

57%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

1

3%

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0

0%

Asian or Asian American

0

0%

Black or African American

3

10%

Hispanic or Latino

0

0%

Non-Hispanic White

26

87%

High School

12

40%

Bachelor's degree

9

30%

Master's Degree

6

20%

Doctoral Degree

2

7%

No response

1

3%

Gender

Race

Education

Data Collection.
To have an effective case study Yin indicates that there are six sources of evidence that
when combined, create a chain of information that strengthens the research questions:
documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observation and

47

physical artifacts (2009, p.102). All forms of evidence were used in this study with the
exception of participant observation. Historical research was conducted as to the original intent
for the use of a Union building, the original physical attributes of each Union building, and how
many, and types of renovations that occurred. Each university was visited; photographs were
taken to illustrate the current conditions. The University archives were visited to find
photographs of the building as they appeared when first built. Photographs that were retrieved
from the archives and current photographs were compared to determine what changes had been
made to the structure. The archives also provided literature and yearbooks that confirmed
information about the original structures, use of the buildings, and subsequent renovations. Tours
were conducted by the Facility Managers of the Purdue Union and the Michigan State University
Union that also confirmed information retrieved from the archives. These tours also allowed
access to areas that normally would not have been possible to the general public. Interviews of
students, alumni and faculty were then conducted to obtain insights to what is valued in a
University building.
Interview Method.
The interviews were conducted on two different days in Brody Hall on the campus of
Michigan State University. The days selected to perform the interviews were based on when it
was anticipated certain groups would be in attendance; one day during the work week was
selected in order to interview faculty and a weekend day where the probability would be higher
for more alumni visiting campus. Brody Hall was selected as the site for the interviews since it
contains one of the largest and busiest dining facilities on campus, classrooms, and a study and
resource center. The days that the interviews were conducted, no faculty were available for
participation. Faculty was interviewed by random selection from around the campus.

48

In adherence to the guidelines of the IRB, participants were informed by the researcher of
the voluntary nature of the interview and the complete confidentiality of their responses. They
were asked to sign a consent form at the onset of the interview (see Appendix B). Ten alumni
known to the researcher were e-mailed and asked to complete the interview questionnaire. The
e-mail introduced the researcher and presented the research project. The interview and the
consent form were attached to the e-mail. The respondents were asked to send the e-mail back to
the researcher after completion by a specific date. Of the ten e-mails that were sent out five
persons responded for a 50% response rate.
Interview Design.
The Interview was divided into three parts:
1. Demographic Information (see Appendix C)
2. The second portion of the interview had to do with the participant’s opinion of the
Union and its relationship to the University. The questions were paraphrased from
the guidelines Knell and Latta encourage for University’s when evaluating the
success of a Union:


Do you think the Union is one of the campus’s primary landmarks? If so, why?



Do you think the interior and architectural character is appropriate to the
institution’s educational mission? If so, how so?



Do you think the style of the interior of the Union complement and contribute to
the overall setting of the campus? If so, how?



Does the building represent the University’s spirit and tradition?



Do you think the Union serves as a gathering place for the entire campus
community? If so, how?

49

3. Thirty black and white photographs, ten from each of the three Pond and Pond
designed Unions, were selected to be used for the interview. The photographs were
divided into these following categories:
Exterior photos:
1. The original building after completion
2. The building as it exists today
Interior photos showing the comparison of:
1. Ballroom
2. Lounge
3. Corridors
4. Paneling detail
5. Stair hand rails
6. Food courts
7. Windows
8. Flooring
The participants were asked to evaluate each group of images and select the one image in each
group that fit their ideal of how the architectural features of a University should look. The
participants were then asked to describe why that particular image was selected. This type of
interview process is based on a technique called “Laddering” (Yin, 2009; Reynolds & Gutman,
1988). The laddering technique of interviewing is a one-on-on approach that is used to develop
an understanding of how the participants translate the attributes of the structure into meaningful
associations. The technique involves directed questions that ask why something is important to
the participant. Most people cannot articulate the reason they may prefer one object over

50

another. This process guides the participant to think about the rationale for their reaction. The
goal is to look for sets of linkages or ladders across the range of attributes (A), consequences (C),
and values (V) (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988, p.12). This type of interview uncovers the
relationships between attributes and associations with each participant.
Data Analysis
A Means End Theory based approach was used to analyze the responses. The Means End
Theory is a conceptual tool used to evaluate the responses from the participants. According to
Reynolds and Gutman, the Means End Theory, or chain approach shows that products are not
selected for themselves or their physiognomies, but rather for the meaning they provoke in the
minds of the participants (1988, p. 11). It seeks to look for a connection between the products
(the “means” or attributes or feature) the consequences (or benefit) for the participant provided
by the attributes, and the personal values (the “ends” or goal) the consequences reinforce
(Reynolds & Gutman, 1988, p.12). For this research the means end theory might look like this
(see Table 3):
Table 3. Example of Means End Distribution
Attribute (A)
Physical characteristics
of Union Buildings

Consequence (C)
Environment
Consistency
Beauty
Tradition
Prestige

Value (V)
Sense of Place
Sense of Community
Heritage

The Means-End Theory looks at the rationale underlying why consequences are
important to the values (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). It explores the connection between the
abstract values or goals of the participant, the concreteness of an attribute and the benefits or
consequence that the participants desire to be satisfied. Links and commonalities of the
responses were analyzed to determine if there are meaningful associations. Codes were then

51

applied to the responses from the participants. The codes were determined by key words or
phrases in the responses. The three values that were determined to be relevant to this research
were sense of place, sense of community and heritage. If the discussion pertained to the physical
characteristics and the emotional connection to the attribute, then a value was coded to the sense
of place. For instance, key phrases such as: the importance on campus, iconic, consistency,
modern, the variety of architectural features, landscape, were coded as having a value indicating
sense of place. If the discussion had key words or phrases that pertained to the social
connection, or how the space functions, such as: how the use of furnishings or flooring defines
the functions, inviting, distracting, how the light from windows or fixtures influences the type of
activity, aesthetics, emotional temperature of the environment, emotional connection,
sustainability, or accessibility, then it was valued for its sense of community. If the discussion
used keywords such as, historic, traditional, looks like the original, or connection to the past,
then it was valued as heritage. Many of the responses had more than one value, so the response
could have more than one code assigned to it.

52

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter presents the empirical and analytical results between the retention of the
historical architectural elements and the sense of place and community. The findings are based
on the results and analysis of interviews. Steele (1981) indicates that a sense of place is a
reaction to the expectations of the physical surrounding and the emotional reaction to the context
of the space. When a response indicated a physical attribute to the structure, it was interpreted as
indicating a sense of place. Rullman, Van den Kleboon & Van Jura (2012), ACUI (2011, Boyer
and Mitgang (1996) discussed the importance of the physical space creating a social environment
and having amenities that draw people together that create a sense of community. In the
interviews, if the response indicated the social environment, or amenities to the environment, it
was interpreted as indicating a sense of community. A synopsis of the results of the interview
will be the first portion of the chapter, followed by an analysis of the responses to determine a
correlation between the attribute and the value.
Interview Part One - Student Involvement with the Union
The thirty respondents indicated they visited the Union a total of 614 times during their
Freshman year, for an average of 20.47 times per year. Sophomore students frequented the
Union the most, 681 times, with an average of 22.7 times. Junior year, students visited 533 times,
or an average of 17.77 times per year, senior year, students visited 470 times, with an average of
15.67 times per year (see Figure 9).

53

Figure 9. Respond
e
dents Estimate of Visits to Union D
s
During Thei Tenure at the Univer
ir
t
rsity
Figure 10 is indicative of the purpose for visiting the Union. Participants were asked to
f
e
g
indicate all options th pertained to them wh answerin Food ran
a
hat
d
hen
ng.
nked the mos important with
st
56.67% (n=17), Stud
(
dying was als an import activity with 26.67% (n=8), foll
so
tant
%
lowed by soc
cial
event 23.
.33% (n=7), bookstore 16.67% (n=5), convenien store 16.
nce
.67% (n=4), banking 13.
.33%
(n=4), en
ntertainment 13.33% (n= 4), attend a meeting 6.6
=
67% (n=2), a work 3.3
and
33% (n=1). The
option fo “other” as a reason to visit the Uni was sele
or
ion
ected 13.33% (n=4). The reasons listed
%
e
were; ma bowling and billiards to find a ri home and student go
ail,
s,
ide
d
overnment ac
ctivities (see
e
Figure 10
0).

54

Figure 10. Respondents Purpose fo Visiting th Union
F
R
or
he
In 2012, the Michigan Sta Universit Union bu
n
M
ate
ty
uilding under
rwent phase one of a maj
ajor
renovatio Accordin to the pro
on.
ng
oject goals outlined by a
o
architectural firm SmithG
Group, the in
ntent
of the ren
novation was; to generat revenue by creating ad
te
y
dditional fun
nctions, simp
plify circulat
tion,
and main
ntain historic integrity while provid
cal
w
ding modern amenities (
n
(2010). The first floor w
was
the focus of phase on The Spar
s
ne.
rty’s conveni
ience store w updated and opened to the food
was
court, an information desk was in
n
nstalled on th main con
he
ncourse, and lighting was replaced an
s
nd
updated as well as all the furnish
a
hings for the main lounge The Bigg coffee sh was relocated
e.
gby
hop
closer to the front door and the fo court. When the qu estion was a
ood
W
asked in the i
interview of
f
p
s
w
,
3)
hile
=15)
whether people had seen the new renovation, 45% (n=13 answered they had, wh 52% (n=
had not seen the reno
s
ovation. The comments about the re
e
enovation we
ere:


Students
o “Not enough remo
e
odel.”
o “Feels like skimpe on detail.
s
ed
.”

55

o “It looks nicer than before; more welcoming.”
o “Like it.”
o “I think it’s really nice and open, but I also never saw what it used to look like
(only under construction).”
o “I approve, it is sleeker and more functional without taking away from the
buildings’ features. I would love to see some more of the buildings historical
features highlighted.”
o “I think it was nice. It looks more clean and the Sparty’s is convenient.”


Faculty/Staff
o “Modernized – better use of space, better lighting – flows better.”
o “Amazing, very comfortable.”
o “It is very nice.”
o “Nicely furnished, good food venue, very open feeling.”



Alumni
o “Great food court reno, didn’t see other (renovations).”
o “OK.”
o “Beautiful.”
o “Beautiful renovation that kept the original feel of the Union.”

Interview Part Two – Importance of the Union Building.
Respondents were asked to answer five questions asking their opinion of how the Union
building enhances campus life and relates to the university.
Question 1. Do you think the Union is one of the campus’s primary landmarks? If
so, why?
In response to the question of whether the respondents considered the Union to be one of
the campuses primary landmarks, about 67% (n=20) of the respondents answered that they felt it

56

was a primary landmark, about 26% (n=8) felt that it was not a primary landmark, and about 7%
(n=2) did not respond.
Of the respondents that answered that it was a landmark, it was found:


“Exterior architecture only, it is the physical representation of the fight song /MSU
lyrics.”



“Historical because of age of building and the emotional connection to the
community.”

Of the respondents that indicated that it was not a primary landmark, comments included:


“It is not architecturally appealing, not used as iconic structure or memorable.”



“I hear people talk about the other buildings instead.”

Question 2. Do you think the interior and architectural character is appropriate to
the institution’s educational mission? If so, how so?
It was found that 63% (n=19) felt that it was appropriate, 10% (n=3) felt it was not, and
27% (n=8) did not respond or were ambiguous.
Statements to the question included:


“It represents the iconic nature of a premier university.”



“Connection to the past is important.”



“It supplies areas to study and meet. Love the architecture. ‘Feels’ like a Union. It
draws you in as a comfortable area.”



“Outside architectural features more so than current interior; overall, it should look
‘older’ and ‘scholarly.”

Of the respondents that did not think it was appropriate to the educational mission of the
university, statements included:


“They should celebrate their history. Sometimes I feel like the Union is just being
covered up.”

57

Of the respondents that were ambiguous, the statements included:


“Yes, because it serves many interdisciplinary needs, but no because it has not kept
up with or adapted to the times.”



I haven’t seen the Union in 25 years. I don’t see how a Union adds anything to an
educational mission. The only possibility is if there are dual use rooms or facilities
class use.”

Question 3. Do you think the style of the interior of the Union complements and
contributes to the overall setting of the campus? If so, how?
In response to the question of whether the style of the interior complements and
contributes to the overall setting of the campus, 50% (n=15) felt that the Union did complement
and contribute to the overall setting, 23% (n=23) felt it did not and 27 % (n=26) either did not
respond or where ambiguous.
Of the respondents that answered that the interior of the Union does complement and
contribute to the overall setting of the campus, statements included:


“It complements the nature of the buildings on North campus.”



“Connection to the past is important.”



“Being north of campus, the traditional feel fits in well because it responds to the
role of the Union.”



“Sure. It is bright, airy. Space is nicely designed. Good use of furniture, carpet,
paint, contributing to an area for all students and employees to study, meet and
greet - social events for students.”
“I think it does now after the renovation. The style flows well with a lot of dorms
creating unity.”




“It is a very chill environment, and that represents the campus as a whole.”



“As long as the exterior appears historical, I’m happy.”

The respondents that felt that the Union did not complement or contribute stated:


“It’s old.”

58



“The interior of the Union has no memorable architectural character.”

The ambiguous respondents stated:


“Difficult to recall.”



“Not sure, pretty modern.”



“OK, if you say it is comfortable space – does it compliment, not really –
contribute - it’s another space, yes it contributes.”

Question 4. Does the building represent the University’s spirit and tradition?
It was found that 74% (n=22) said it did and 20% (n=6) felt it did not. Why the
respondents responded negatively or positively was not asked of this question, therefore no
statements were made.
Question 5. Do you think the Union serves as a gathering place for the entire
campus community?
In response to the question of whether the Union serves as a gathering place for the entire
campus community, 60% (n=18) felt that the Union is a gathering place, 36% (n=11) felt it is not
and 3 % (n=1) was ambiguous.
Some of the statements made by the respondents that felt that the Union is a gathering
place included:


“Accessible, has historical value. Many amenities and functions, great for
commuters. Alumni like coming back.”



“There used to be dances. There is bowling and areas to eat.”



“Comforting place to hang out.”



“Its many features allow this. Everything from only women’s lounge to a bowling
alley draw people in.”



“Because it is at north campus so people off campus and on campus can meet at a
place convenient for both.”

The respondents that did not feel that the Union is a gathering place stated:

59



“It has never felt to me like a gathering place. It is a catchall for different services
and orphaned unconnected departments.”



“It is a great place to go bowling or play pool, but it does not seem to offer a
decent place to study in groups, watch movies, eat pizza with a game, etc.”



“Not all the time. The campus is too large.”

The respondent that was ambiguous stated:


Will wait to see how it goes after the next renovation – sounds like it will.”

Interview Part Three - Response to Images
Respondents were asked to look at a series of images. The images were divided into a
variety of architectural features. The variable within this section of the interview was that
University of Michigan, Purdue University and Michigan State University were all randomly
represented in each group:
Group 1 – Original exterior renderings by architectural firm of Pond and Pond
A. Michigan State University
B. Purdue University
C. University of Michigan
Group 2 - Recent exterior photographs of front entrance
A. University of Michigan
B. Purdue University
C. Michigan State University
Group 3 - Recent photographs of ballroom
A. Michigan State University
B. Purdue University
C. University of Michigan

60

Group 4 - Recent photographs of lounge
A. Purdue University
B. Michigan State University
C. University of Michigan
Group 5 - Recent photographs of corridor
A. Michigan State University
B. University of Michigan
C. Purdue University
Group 6 – Recent photograph of wood paneling detail
A. Michigan State University
B. Purdue University
C. University of Michigan
Group 7 – Recent photographs of stair hand rails
A. Michigan State University
B. Purdue University
C. University of Michigan
Group 8 – Recent photographs of food court
A. University of Michigan
B. Michigan State University
C. Purdue University
Group 9 – Recent photographs of windows
A. Purdue University
B. Michigan State University

61

C. University of Michigan
Group 10 – Recent photographs of flooring
A. Michigan State University
B. Purdue University
C. University of Michigan
Respondents interviewed were not aware of the locations of each of the photographs.
The variables were assessed by asking the respondents to look at each group of photographs and
select the one photograph that best represented their ideal image of what makes a Union building
look collegiate. Respondents were then asked to explain why that particular image appears
collegiate.
Evaluation results of images of architectural characteristics within union buildings.
Group 1. Original exterior renderings by architectural firm of Pond and Pond.
The exterior rendering of Purdue University was selected by 37% (n=11) of the
respondents, followed by University of Michigan, 33% (n=10), Michigan State University 17%
(n= 5), the remaining 13% (n=4) were ambiguous (see Figure 11).

62

Figure 11. Group 1 – Origin Exterior Renderings by Archite
e
p
nal
s
ectural Firm of Pond a
m
and
Pond
ondents who selected mo than one image, or a of the ima
o
ore
e
all
ages, the rea
asons
The ambiguous respo
stated we
ere:


“They all look the same with brick, limest
y
e
b
tone, arches, peaks, etc.”
”



“Old and scholarl
ly.”
cted
an
University o Michigan)
of
)
(Respondent selec Michiga State Uni versity and U



“Each looks simil hard to choose.”
h
lar,
c



“All are represent
a
tative to me.”
”

Other res
spondents co
ommented:


(MSU “It looks a lot like our Union, and feels comfo
U)
r
d
ortable and recognizable to
me. It’s what I ca to MSU thinking wa a Union. I have no o
ame
U
as
other images to
compa it to.”
are



(U of M) “It’s tall and official sort of how you want y
l
l,
w
your educati to be.”
ion



(PU) “Entries on all sides with sidewalks leading to a circling. Looms upw
“
a
h
and
ward,
but no too much.
ot

63

Group 2. Rec exterior photograph of front en
G
cent
r
hs
ntrance.
Th photograp of the Pur
he
ph
rdue Univers entrance was selecte by 43% (n
sity
e
ed
n=13) of the
responde
ents, followed by Univer
rsity of Mich
higan, 37% (
(n=11), Mich
higan State U
University 17%
(n= 5), th remaining 1% (n=1) was ambiguo (see Figu 12).
he
g
w
ous
ure

Figu 12. Gro 2 - Photographs of Front Entrance Design
ure
oup
n
The ambiguous responden selected more than on image. Th reason sta was, “A (U
T
nt
m
ne
he
ated
A
of M) is very historic but B (PU has gorge
v
cal,
U)
eous origina windows a door entrance.”
al
and
Other res
spondents co
ommented:


(U of M) “Classic historic loo Large wi
c,
ok.
indows and welcoming.”
”



(PU) “Windows and brick hav been pres
“
a
ve
served to orig
ginal.”



(MSU “It looks collegiate ye modern.”
U)
c
et

Group 3. Pho
G
otographs of ballroom de
esign.

64

The Ballroom of the Univ
T
m
versity of Michigan was selected by 67% (n=20) of the
)
responde
ents, followed by Purdue University, 20% (n=6), Michigan S
e
,
State University 7% (n= 2),
the remai
ining 1% (n= was amb
=1)
biguous (see Figure 13).
e

Figure 13. Group 3 – Photographs of Ballroom Design
F
G
s
m
Many of the respondents made statem
M
r
ments not onl of the phy
ly
ysical charac
cteristics of t
the
rooms, bu what crea the ambiance or wha they imag
ut
ated
at
gined the roo could hav been used for:
om
ve
d


“A” (MSU looks gen
U)
neric, “C” (P looks lik a gymnasi
PU)
ke
ium; “B” (U of M) bring to
U
gs
mind old 1940’s mixe with stud
ers
dents in suits and cocktai dresses wh is very
s
il
hich
idyllic to me.”



(PU) “It looks like a good dance floor.”
g
f



“B” (U of M) would be best if it had carpet – cool lights a window “C” (PU)
f
b
h
and
ws.
looks like a roller rink – it’s the ceiling. “A” (
e
k
(MSU) dulls
sville – no w
windows.”



(U of M) “Authentic, grand, beau
utiful. Love the windows and wall d
details.
al.”
Traditiona

Group 4. Pho
G
otographs of lounges.

65

The lounge of Purdue Un
T
niversity was selected by 47% (n=14 of the resp
s
y
4)
pondents,
followed by Michiga State Univ
d
an
versity, 43% (n=13), Un
%
niversity of M
Michigan 10% (n= 3) (se
ee
Figure 14
4).

Figure 14. Group 4 – Photogr
1
raphs of Lou
unge
Some of the respondents stated:
r


(MSU “More eff
U)
ficient. Peop don’t lik to sit next to each othe
ple
ke
er.”

 (MSU “There are many optio for seatin many lig
U)
e
ons
ng,
ghting option and it is
ns,
modern an hip which draws in a younger cro
nd
h
owd.”
Of the respondents th selected the lounge at the Univer
hat
t
a
rsity of Mich
higan some o the comm
of
ments
were:


“Best area to stud
dy.”



“Good place to ga
d
ather and stu Welcom
udy.
ming, looks li anyone c
ike
could set up
camp and be there for a period of time.”
e
d

Group 5. Pho
G
otographs of corridors.

66

The corridor at the Unive
T
ersity of Mic
chigan was se
elected by 8
80% (n=24) o the
of
responde
ents, followed by Purdue University, 13% (n=4), Michigan S
e
,
State University 7% (n= 2)
(see figur 15).
re

Figure 15 Group 5 – Photograp of Corr
5.
phs
ridors
All of the cor
A
rridors had so type of seating inte
ome
f
egrated into t design. T Michiga
the
The
an
State Uni
iversity corr
ridor had gro
oups of seatin similar in layout to th University of Michiga
ng
n
he
y
an.
Each had loveseats, lounge chair end tables and lamps , but the maj
d
l
rs,
s,
jority of the respondents
s
selected the Universi of Michig
t
ity
gan. Statem
ments about th corridors at the Unive
he
ersity of
Michigan were:
n


“Inviting to walk thro
ough or take a moment to relax.”
o



“Promotes comfort/m
meeting and interaction.”



“Great mi of beautif original paneling cof
ix
ful,
p
ffered ceiling and comfo
g
ortable furnit
ture
and rugs.”
”



“Good co
ombination of function with tradition or warm elements.”
o
w
nal

67



“Nice mix of ‘warm’ sitting space with carpet, yet walk area is clean and open.
Plenty of seating. Upper lighting is bright, yet fixtures are appropriate to the era it
was built.”


Statements about Michigan State University consisted of:


“Artwork, small semi-private conversations.”



”It has more of a ‘home’ feeling.”

The corridor at Purdue University only provided a bench for seating. Statements about Purdue
were:


“It needs some seating.”



“Functional corridor. “B” (U of M) seems noisy.”

Group 6. Photographs of paneling design.
The paneling at the University of Michigan was selected by 60% (n=18) of the
respondents, followed by Purdue University, 37% (n=11), Michigan State University 0% (n= 0),
3% of the respondents (n=1) were ambiguous. The ambiguous response stated, “ “B” (PU) and
“C”(U of M) nice classic wood – “A” (MSU) was probably “cool” when installed – should avoid
“cool” stuff in these locations – need to stay with classical stuff.” (see Figure 16).

68

Figure 16. Group 6 - Ph
F
G
hotographs of Paneling Design
s
g
The responde that sele
T
ents
ected the pan
neling at the University o Michigan stated:
of


“I like the intricate look.”
e



“Like the diverse feat
tures, warm paneling – n too high to make the area smaller –
p
not
r
lower ceil
ling.”



“I like the combinatio of drywall and the wo
e
on
ood.”



“Details are welcomin
a
ng/charm, or
riginals.”

hat
P
ed:
Of the respondents th selected Purdue, state


“B” (PU) and “C” (U of M) are very similar. I like that “ doesn’t g all the wa to
“C”
go
ay
the ceiling but the ste lights are distracting. “B” is just beautiful wi the trim a
g,
em
e
.
ith
and
the windo
ows. “A” (M
MSU) is hideo
ous.”



“A lot of detail from floor to ceili topped w window
f
ing,
with
ws.”



“Warm, modern yet tr
m
raditional. “A (MSU) lo
A”
ooks more li a hotel a “C” look
ike
and
ks
dated.”

Group 7. Pho
G
otographs of stair hand ra
ails.
The stair hand rail design at Purdue University w selected b 47% (n=1 of the
T
d
n
U
was
by
14)
responde
ents. While 23% (n=7) se
2
elected the University of Michigan, and another 23% (n=7)
U
f

69

selected Michigan St Universi while 7% (n= 2) whe ambiguo stating that they all
M
tate
ity,
%
ere
ous,
looked si
imilar (see Figure 17).
F

Figure 17. Group 7 – Ph
F
G
hotographs of Stair Ha Rails
and
The stair hand rails at Michigan State University and at Purdu Universit are simila in
T
d
e
ue
ty
ar
design an style. However, the majority of the respond
nd
H
f
dents selected Purdue Un
d
niversity. Th
he
statemen from the respondents included:
nts
r


“Gran
nder.”



“A lot of detail. Fits the perio that the un
t
F
od
niversity wa built.”
as



“Stron and sturdy feel.”
ng
y

The respo
ondents that selected Mi
t
ichigan State University stated:
e
y


“I only picked “A (MSU) ov “C” (PU) because of the switch b
A”
ver
)
back stairs, w
which
I like, but I don’t like the no-s black str in “A”, t
slip
rips
there must b a more
be
pleasi solution.”
ing



r
w
al
s
d
e.”
“The railings allow for a visua of what is to come and who is on the staircase

When the University of Michigan stair hand rails were se
e
y
n
elected, it was the constr
ruction mate
erial
that was most often mentioned:
m

70



”Warm
m.”



“The wood.”
w



“Woo is warmer older statem
od
r,
ment.”

Group 8. Pho
G
otographs of food court.
The food court at the Purdue Uni was selected by 50% (n=15) of t responde
d
e
ion
%
the
ents, 27% (n= 8)
=
selected the food cou at the Uni
t
urt
iversity of Michigan, 20 (n=7) selected Michigan State
M
0%
Universit and 3% (n
ty
n=1) was am
mbiguous (see Figure 18)
).

Figure 18. Group 8 – Photograp of Food Court
.
phs
nts
urdue’s food court compr
rised:
Some of the statemen about Pu


“Non
n-restaurant feel. Can combine eatin with rela
ng
axing, studyin and not f
ng
feel
rushe
ed.”



“A” (P is not bo
PU)
oring. “B” (M
MSU) is fun but has lim
n
mited architec
ctural detail and I
don’t like the drop ceiling blo
p
ocking the ar
rched window “C” (PU is beautifu
ws.
U)
ful
and ha great arch
as
hitectural det with com
tail
mplimentary furniture.”



oks
teractive.”
“It loo more int



“Not too modern or retro.”
t
o

71

Of the respondents that selected the University of Michigan some statements included:


“Space efficient.”



“More traditional.”



“More intimate setting, less cafeteria.”



“Clean lines.”

The statements about Michigan State University included:


“I like food courts to feel more modern. This is fresh and welcoming.”



“Variety, interesting.”



“Looks the best.”

The ambiguous respondent stated, “These are all fine. A food court is not part of only a union
building. As long as it functions well, it could be anywhere.”
Group 9. Photographs of windows.
The windows at the University of Michigan was the preferred design at 63% (n=19)
followed by the Purdue University at 23% (n=7) and Michigan State University at 7% (n=2) (see
Figure 19). Two respondents were ambiguous. The first respondent selected both “A” (PU) and
“C” (U of M) and stated,” Very traditional – I suppose “B” (MSU) is too, but the A/C really
detracts.” The second respondent who also selected “A” (PU) and “C” (U of M) stated, “B”
(MSU) is hideous, “A”(PU) and “C”(U of M) are gorgeous.”

72

Figure 19 Group 9 – Photogra
9.
aphs of Win
ndows
Of the respon
O
ndents that se
elected the University of Michigan s
U
f
some of the statements w
were:


“Love the window and the fu
e
ws
urniture.”



“Natu light, pla
ural
ants, comfort
table seating
g.”



“I wou rather stu in this picture with p
uld
udy
p
plants and se and natu light. It also
eats
ural
t
looks similar to ph
hoto “A”.”



“I don see the di
n’t
ifference bet
tween “A” (P and “C” (U of M).”
PU)
”
”

Of the respon
O
ndents that se
elected the window at Pu
w
urdue Unive
ersity:


“Cont
tains a lot of detail with the multitud of small p
f
de
panels.”



“Does look so creepy and old.”
sn’t
c
o

Of the respon
O
ndents that se
elected the windows at M
w
Michigan Sta Universi no comm
ate
ity,
ments
were mad
de.
Group 10. Ph
G
hotographs of flooring.
o
Selection of the flooring was the mos evenly dist
t
w
st
tributed of th responses from the
he
s
w.
rity
ndents, 43% (n=13) sele
%
ected the floo at the Uni
or
iversity of
interview The major of respon
Michigan as the one that represen what a fl
n
nts
loor in a coll
lege building should look like. Purd
g
due

73

Universit was select by 30% (n=9) of the respondents and 27% (n
ty
ted
s
n=8) of the r
respondents
selected the floors at Michigan State Univers
t
S
sity, while 3% (n=1) was ambiguous The ambig
%
s
s.
guous
statemen felt that an of the floo were acce
nt
ny
ors
eptable (see Figure 20).

Figure 20 Group 10 – Photogr
0.
0
raphs of Flo
ooring
Of the respon
O
ndents that se
elected the floors at the U
f
University o Michigan some of the
of
statemen made wer
nts
re:


“Inter
resting but maintainable.”
m



“Nice pattern, but not too busy.”
t



“Trad
ditional and updated, easy to clean.”
u
y

The respo
ondents that selected Pu
t
urdue Univer
rsity some of the stateme were:
f
ents


“Patte fits in with the overal look at the university. Interesting pattern brea
ern
ll
e
g
aks
up the expansive floor withou the use of furniture.”
e
f
ut



“A” (M
MSU) looks like high sc
s
chool. “B” (P and “C” (U of M) ar both nice, but
PU)
”
re
,
“C” ch
heckerboard reads like a kitchen, wh “B” has more intere
d
hile
esting detail.”
”

Some of statements about the flo at Michig State Un
a
oor
gan
niversity:


“Time
eless and sol
lid.”

74



“Basic, clean look, soothing.”



“It’s getting walked on, decorations really don’t matter.”

Interview Part Four: Response to Images - Past and Present
Interviewees were asked to look at photographs of the Union taken during two different
eras; before the second renovation and after the third renovation, and compare them to
photographs taken in 2013. Respondents were asked to evaluate the images as if they were on a
planning committee that would be selecting various components for the building.
Exterior images of the Union with emphasis on evaluating the windows.
Respondents were asked to evaluate the original windows of a photograph taken in 1935
and compare them to the photograph of existing replacement windows. The windows of the
1935 photograph were selected by 63% (n=19) of the respondents with statements of:


“Looks better on north campus.”



“It adds character to the building.”



“They look classic.”



“They have a prestigious look about them compared to the 2013 windows.
Arches /curves provide character.”



“Ugh… this makes me upset. Why would anybody remove such beautiful
windows and brick them in? At least replace them slowly with more insulated
replicas of originals. What was once beautiful in every way now looks like a
bruised and bandaged relic.”



“1935-so much more character, 2013 – sucked the life out of it.”



“Definitely the 1935 windows. They help to give the building character with the
multiple panels and ornate detail. The union in 2013 lacks character and
interest…sad.”



I like the 1935 windows better. I think it matches with the older dorms and
buildings in that area of campus.”

75



“These windows are so much more beautiful and have so much more character. I
do not understand why you would cover up MSU’s history, or these beautiful
intricate windows.”



“I am inclined towards the historical and find that the detailed architecture of the
campus sets it apart from other schools I have attended.”



1935 is better. 2013 looks like a condemned property.”

Of the 33% (n=10) of the respondents that selected the windows in the 2013 photograph,
statements included:
1. “High performance windows that met energy criteria.”
2. “More modern.”
3. “The newer windows look more inviting and not so closed off.”
4. “Appears larger. I like the curves.”
5. “Planning for upkeep, I’d go with 2013; less painting, easier to clean. Different
viewing and probably brighter without the extra slats on the windows.”
6. “Because it looks better with the trees and I like the windows better.”
7. “Windows are probably more energy efficient and they don’t appear to be
obstructed with tracery.”
Exterior images of the Union with emphasis on evaluating the front entry doors.
Respondents were asked to evaluate a photograph of the original front entry doors of the
Union in a photograph taken in 1935 and compare to the existing replacement doors in the
photograph taken in 2013. The doors of the 1935 photograph were selected by 80% (n=24) of
the respondents with statements of:


“Seem to fit the style.”



“Old look is better on north campus.”



“The second one (2013) looks cheap and outdated.”

76



“More interesting.”



“Again, the subtle arches/curves give it a more classic, prestigious look with
character. Non-cookie cutter appearance.”



“2013 is nondescript. 1935 is beautiful, but 2013 is cleaner which I appreciate
and I like the ivy on 2013.”



“Traditional, warm, inviting and full of character.”



“I would select 1935 again, a lot more detail, helps to contribute to the overall
look and feel of the building and campus. The 2013 doors are bland and generic.”



“The vintage look is kind of eye catching.”



“Feel more grand.”



“Historic and prestigious.”



“More ornate wood detail.”



“Love the traditional worn look.”



“Once again this has character and history. Why would we replace it with generic
doors when these doors and exterior façade is so unique?”



“They are beautiful. It represents the long history of the university.”



“I’d select 1935, but make the doors double wide and improve lighting.”

Of the 20% (n=6) of the respondents that selected the front entry doors of the 2013 photograph,
statements included:


“I’d pick the 2013 door because it looks more simple.”



“Steel doors? 2013 appears taller and wider which is better for movement.
Probably easier care but unsure of this.”



“More modern and welcoming, and there is a long window which seems safer to
me, so you can see in and out.”



“1935 looks too churchy.”

Exterior images of the Union with emphasis on evaluating interior conference room.

77

Respondents were asked to evaluate a photograph that was taken in 1949 of a newly
renovated conference room in the Union, and a photograph taken in 2013 of a conference room
located in the same area of the union. The respondents were asked to evaluate the windows in
each image and select the one style of windows they would select if they were on a planning
committee and why. The 1949 photograph was selected by 67% (n=20) of the respondents with
statements of:


“2013 is modern institutional and doesn’t fit my idea of what the MSU union
should be.”



“The 2013 version makes me disinterested in learning there.”



“Older is better on north campus.”



“Drapes need updating – softens the space.”



“Appropriate to the period.”



“Same as before. (Subtle curves give it a more classic prestigious look with
character. Non-cookie cutter appearance.) A much more welcoming appearance.
Warm. The curtains seem to add a nice touch.”



“1949 is gorgeous; 2013 is boring and nondescript.”



“1949. The 2013 union in one word…yuck! The 1949 picture is welcoming and
warm with a lot of detail in the windows. Looks like a place you want to gather
and spend time. The 2013 picture is generic, sterile, uninviting and looks like an
office or hospital waiting room.”



“More visually stimulating.”



“Very scholarly.”



“Looks more academic.”



“This seems to be the ongoing motif for the union. Why not keep it around and
strengthen the branding of the building?”

78

Of the 26% (n=8) of the respondents that selected the image from 2013, some of the statements
made were:


“With technology always in our face, a lot of students nowadays wouldn’t really
notice fine decorations, so I wouldn’t pick the 2013 room.”



“I suppose 2013 is easier to clean or repair versus multiple glass panels. Better
view, probably brighter light.”



“I like the more open windows.”



“Easier to clean and allows most light.”



“Unobstructed windows. More light.”



“More modern, high performance.”

The remaining 7% (n=2) did not select an option. One of the respondents stated, “1949 look
nicer, but the 2013 people can gaze outside easier
Analysis
After respondents supplied demographic information, the interview consisted of five
questions that pertained to how the respondents perceived the importance of the Union to the
university. This section took the responses and analyzed the coded information and categorized
which value was represented in the respondent’s discussion by using keywords that attributed the
response to heritage, sense of place or sense of community.
Question 1. Do you think the Union is one of the campus’s primary landmarks ? If so,
why?
The responses indicate that 30% (n=10) of the respondents feel that the heritage of the
Union building is a factor for the Union to be a landmark on the campus of Michigan State
University because of the historical aspects of the structure, while 26% (n=8) indicate that the
Union is a landmark because of its contribution to the sense of community because they consider

79

it a gathering place, and a place to eat study and shop. Only 13% (n=4) felt that the location of
the Union is what makes it important to the sense of place on the campus of Michigan State
University (see Table 4).
Table 4. Means End Theory Distribution of the Union as a Primary Landmark
Attribute
Consequence
Value
Campus Landmark

Historic (n=10)

Heritage

Place to eat, study, shop (n=1)

Sense of Community

Gathering Place (n=7)
Importance on Campus (n=4)

Sense of Place

Question 2. Do you think the interior and architectural character is appropriate to the
institution’s educational mission? If so, how so?
According to the responses, 27% (n=8) of the respondents indicated that the heritage of
the structure contributes to the Union being architecturally appropriate to the university’s
mission. 30% (n=9) indicate the Union’s sense of community is what contributes to the
educational mission of the university by being sustainable and accessible. Only 10% (n=3)
indicated that the iconic nature of the structure contributes to the sense of place by being iconic.
(see Table 5).
Table 5. Means End Theory Distribution of Architectural Character Appropriateness to
Educational Mission
Attribute
Consequence
Value
Architectural appropriateness to
university's mission

Iconic (n=3)

Sense of Place

Historic/Classic (n=8)
Gathering place (n=7)

Heritage
Sense of
Community

Sustainable (n=1)
Accessibility (n=1)

80

Question 3. Do you think the style of the interior of the Union complements and
contributes to the overall setting of the campus? If so how?
The responses indicated that 17% (n=5) felt that the heritage of the building is the reason that the
Union’s interior space contributes to the overall setting of the university. 23% (n=7) of the
respondents stated that the Union’s consistency, updated appearance, and comfort where
indications that the Union had a sense of place. The major grouping of responses, 30% (n=9),
indicated that comfort and location of the building on campus contributed to the sense of
community and was the main reason that the Union’s interior space contributes to the overall
setting of the campus (see Table 6).
Question 4. Does the building represent the University’s spirit and tradition?
Respondents were not asked to give a rationale for their responses, so it was not analyzed by a
Means End Theory Distribution
Table 6. Means End Theory Distribution of Union’s Interior Space Contributing to the Overall
Setting of Campus
Attribute
Consequence
Value
Interior Space of Union
contribution to overall setting
of campus

Connection to the past (n=5)

Heritage/Nostalgia

Consistency (n=4)
Updated (n=3)
Comfortable (n=3)
Location on campus (n=3)
Unity with other campus
updates (n=3)

Sense of Place
Sense of Community

Question 5. Do you think the Union serves as a gathering place for the entire campus
community?
As can be expected, statements about the amenities, function of the building, help to
create the sense of community. It was the foremost value with 67% (n=20) of the respondents

81

commenting that Union building is a gathering place for the campus of Michigan State
University for one reason or another. The other value mentioned by 7% (n=2) of the respondents
was the heritage or the nostalgia of the Union building helping to make the building the
gathering place for the campus. The physical attributes that would be considered as indicative of
the Union having a sense was place was not addressed in this question. The question directed the
respondents to discuss the social aspects of the Union not the physical attributes (see Table 7).
Table 7. Means End Theory Distribution of the Unions as a Gathering Place for the Campus
Attribute
Consequence
Value
Gathering Place
Historical (n=2)
Heritage/Nostalgia
Amenities/Functions
Sense of Community
(n=3)
Social/Meeting (n=10)
Bowling/Billiards(n=3)
Place to Study (n=1)
Place to Eat (n=3)
Analysis of respondent’s discussions about the images of the Union buildings
architectural characteristics.
Group 1. Original exterior renderings by architectural firm of Pond and Pond.
When respondents were asked to discuss the exterior renderings of the Unions, the grand
scale of the building, and the landscape surrounding the building was an observation made by
40% (n=12) of the respondents; thus indicating that the overall design of the building created a
sense of place, and was an important element reflected in the renderings. 43% (n=13) felt that
renderings indicated a design that met their emotional expectations of what a Union should look
like, or that it was inviting. These responses indicated that the building looked like a structure
that would encourage people to engage, thereby developing a sense of community. Only 13%
(n=4) of the respondents commented on the historical aspects of the renderings (see Table 8).

82

Table 8. Means End Distribution - Original Architect's Rendering of Union Buildings
Attribute
Consequence
Value
Original
Exterior
Design

Grand Scale of Building
(n=10)

Sense of Place

Landscape Surrounding (n=2)
Meets Expectations (n=5)
Inviting (n=8)

Sense of Community

Historic Looking (n=4)

Heritage

Group 2. Recent exterior photographs of front entrance.
Overwhelmingly 67% (n=20) of the respondents indicated that the architectural features
of the front entrance contributed to the structures aesthetic appeal contributing to the sense of
place. The respondents indicated that the front entrance design encouraged people to engage
with the structure by being inviting, was commented on by 30% (n=9), thus contributing to the
sense of community. The historical aspect of the design was discussed by 17% (n=5) of the
respondents (see Table 9).
Table 9. Means End Distribution - Front Entrance Design
Attribute
Consequence
Front Entrance
Inviting (n=9)
Good Architectural Features (n=20)
Historic (n=5)

Value
Sense of Community
Sense of Place
Heritage

Group 3. Photographs of ballroom design.
The sense of place was indicated as the most compelling value with 60% (n=18) of the
respondents discussing design features of the Ballroom. Thirteen of the respondents 43%
commented on how the ambiance of the Ballroom enhanced the sense of community by creating
an environment where people could gather for social events. The historical elements of the
Ballroom were discussed by 40% (n=12) of the respondents (see Table 10).

83

Table 10. Means End Distribution – Ballroom
Attribute
Consequence
Ballroom
Historic (n=8)
Traditional (n=4)
Ambiance (n=13)
Windows (n=5)
Flooring (n=6)
Lighting (n=7)

Value
Heritage
Sense of Community
Sense of Place

Group 4. Photographs of lounges.
Only 13% (n=4) of the respondents commented that heritage was an important value in
their discussion of the lounges. Respondents indicated that the architectural features and the
modern approach to the layout with a high variety of seating contributed to the sense of place,
with 50% (n=15) of the respondents indicating it was a value important to them. Many of the
respondents, 27% (n=8), indicated that seating contributed to the sense of place because of the
type, style and comfort of the furnishings. Many of the respondents, 47% (n=14,) felt that there
was some level of an emotional connection to lounges which contributed to the sense of
community. Of the respondents that mentioned that the space felt historic, the lounge at Purdue
University was selected. Of the respondents that felt the social atmosphere was enhanced
because of the variety of seating, the lounge at Michigan State University was the preferred
selection (see Table 11).
Table 11. Means End Distribution – Lounges
Attribute
Consequence
Lounge
Historic (n=4)
Architectural Features (n=3)
Modern (n=3)
Variety of Seating (n=8)
Emotional Connection (n=14)
Group 5. Photographs of corridors.

84

Value
Heritage
Sense of Place

Sense of Community

Respondents found that the layout and style furnishings encouraged social interaction,
which contributed to the sense of community. This was the discussed by 53% (n=16) as being
the most highly regarded value when they examined the images of the corridors. The
furnishings, architectural features, and function of the corridors was the factor mentioned by
37% (n=11) of the respondents. The historic elements, or lack of historic elements, were
commented on by 17% (n=5) of the respondents. The discussion from the respondents indicated
that combination of the values, architectural features, functional aspect of the corridor being a
conduit from one area to the next, the cleanliness of the modern design, and the furnishings
helped to create a sense of place (see Table 12).
Table 12. Means End Distribution – Corridors
Attribute
Consequence
Corridor
Historic (n=3)
Modern (n=2)
Architectural Features (n=3)
Functional (n=3)
Furnishings (n=5)
Promotes Social Interaction (n=16)

Value
Heritage
Sense of Place

Sense of Community

Group 6. Photographs of paneling design.
The majority of the responses, 77% (n=23) discussed how design details of the paneling
was a contributing factor to creating a sense of place. Very few of the respondents 13 %( n=4)
actually discussed the historical value, but referred to the traditional design of the paneling and
how it contributed to the heritage of the environment. The warmth or emotional appeal of the
wood was discussed by 20% (n= 6) of the respondents which is valued in developing an
environment that contributes to the sense of community (see Table 13).

85

Table 13. Means End Distribution - Paneling Design
Attribute
Consequence
Paneling
Traditional (n=4)
Height of Paneling (n=5)
Wood (n=7)
Visually Appealing (n=11)
Warm (n=6)

Value
Heritage
Sense of Place

Sense of Community

Group 7. Photographs of stair hand rails.
It was found that 40% (n=12) of the respondents felt that the stair handrails construction
materials, details and beauty of the railings and function of the stairs leading people into the
space contributed to the sense of community of the Union buildings. The construction materials
were also cited by 10% (n=3) as contributing to the sense of place by adding warmth to the
environment. The historical value of the hand rails was specifically mentioned by 13% (n=4) of
the respondents (see Table 14).
Table 14. Means End Distribution - Stair Hand Rails
Attribute
Consequence
Stair Hand Rail
Historical (n=4)
Wood/Warm (n=3)
Function (n=5)
Aesthetics (n=7)

Value
Heritage
Sense of Place
Sense of Community

Group 8. Photographs of food courts.
Most of the respondents, 53% (n=16) mentioned that the sense of community was
enhanced by the type and layout of the furnishings, as well as the ambiance of the design
elements in the food court. The architecture of the food court was discussed by 20% (n=6)
which was analyzed as contributing to the sense of place. Only two respondents specifically
mentioned the historical elements of food courts contributing to the heritage of the building (see
Table 15).

86

Table 15. Means End Distribution - Food Courts
Attribute
Consequence
Food
Traditional (n=2)
Court
Architecture (n=6)
Furniture (n=7)
Ambiance (n=9)

Value
Heritage
Sense of Place
Sense of Community

Group 9. Photographs of windows.
How the windows created an inviting environment which contributed to the buildings
sense of community was mentioned by 53% (n=16) of the respondents. The discussions
included descriptions of the how the architectural details of the windows. Some respondents
indicated they could visualize themselves in the room where the windows are located, and the
subsequent emotional response to that environment. The scale of the windows and the
architectural details of the frames was cited by 27% (n=8) of respondents as a contributing factor
to the sense of place. Only two respondents specifically referred to the historical aspects of the
window. It was also mention by two of the respondent’s that the accessories; plants (U of M)
and air conditioning unit (MSU) was a distracting factor in the image (see Table 16).
Table 16. Means Ends Distribution - Window
Attribute
Consequence
Windows
Historic (n=2)
Large (n=3)
Detail (n=5)
Distracting Accessories (n=2)
Light (n=5)
Inviting (n=9)

Value
Heritage
Sense of Place
Sense of Community

Group 10. Photographs of flooring.
This is the first category not to mention the historical aspect of the material or design. It
is also the first category to have maintenance has a theme. It was found that 80% (n=24) of the

87

respondents discussed how the design of the flooring contributed to the sense of place. The
respondents commented on how the pattern or lack of pattern created interest. Two of the
respondents felt that the design of the floor helped to define the space for a variety of activities
which contributes to the sense of community (see Table 17).
Table 17. Means Ends Distribution - Flooring
Attribute
Consequence
Flooring
Defines Areas (n=2)
Maintenance ( n=2)
Interesting (n=6)
Pattern (n=12)
Plain (n=4)

Value
Sense of Community
Sense of Place

88

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The subsequent chapter will discuss interpretations of the findings from the interviews,
followed by conclusions and speculative implications that can be derived from the study. A
discussion will then follow on the limitations of this study and future research potential.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to identify whether the alteration or removal of the
historical features of a building affects the sense of place, thereby affecting the sense of
community. This is the first known research that has sought to understand how the renovation of
a structure can affect a person’s perception and emotional connection to the structure and the
structures perceived status in the community. Based on the results from the interviews, this
research had three main questions that will be discussed based on the major findings.
Question 1. How do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel about the retention of
the original architectural features of the Union building?
During the interview, respondents were asked to analyze and evaluate various features
located within the Union buildings. The first group of images they were asked to evaluate were
the original schematic sketches done by the architect. When respondents evaluated the sketches
of the original architectural renderings of the structures, many had a hard time discerning the
difference between the three buildings. Since all the renderings and design were by the same
firm, this was the expected reaction. These images were intentionally selected to show that the
buildings were designed using the same Collegiate Gothic style and to observe how each
building had been altered and changed from the original design during subsequent renovations.
The interview was designed so that the respondents would focus on individual characteristics and

89

discuss the reasoning for their design preference of each attribute. It was theorized that by the
end of the interview the respondents would notice the similarity in the original design of each
and be able to discuss their opinion about how the exterior of the University of Michigan and
Purdue University had changed little from its original design, but that Michigan State’s exterior
had been altered by replacing the Gothic tracery windows for more energy efficient
contemporary style. Respondents intentionally were not informed of the location of each sketch
so as not to influence their preference. Only one respondent recognized that one of the sketches
was the Union building at Michigan State University.
During the interviews it was shown that the strongest preference was both the University
of Michigan and Purdue University building design. Using the Means End Theory Distribution
chart to analyze the responses from the interviews, it was found that words such as scholarly,
grand presence, inviting, stability and grace were most often used in their descriptions of these
two buildings. One third of the responses had used the term grand presence to describe the
building. By using these words the respondents indicate the importance of the building to the
sense of place on campus. A theory can be made that the Collegiate Gothic style of the structure
influences that the building holds an important place on campus. The responses also indicate
that the building has a sense of community by describing the building as a place to gather and
discussing how the landscape surrounding the building allows for people to mingle. When the
sketches of the buildings were drawn, the heritage for the structures did not exist for they had yet
to be built. However, respondents associate the sketches with heritage by stating, “brick and ivy
and rich history”, “old and scholarly”. Statements such as these indicate that heritage is
associated with the Collegiate Gothic style and the intrinsic design elements of that style. By
altering the exterior design and eliminating the key elements of the collegiate gothic style, such

90

as the tracery windows and intricately designed front doors, the style of the building has been
altered and lessens its sense of place on campus.
The front entrance of the building is the most important feature of the structure. It is the
first impression of the building and it can either draw people into the structure or repel
admittance. Its architectural elements are what unify the overall design of the building. Seven
respondents indicated that their selection felt inviting or welcoming which reflects a sense of
community. Of those seven responses all of them selected either the University of Michigan or
Purdue University, overall twenty four respondents selected the doors at both University of
Michigan and Purdue University; both having retained the original Collegiate Gothic design of
the doors. Michigan State University had changed the doors to a more contemporary style. The
five respondents that selected the doors from Michigan State University, two respondents did not
comment and the three that did comment all liked the simplicity and ease of maintenance of the
doors. Those comments do not indicate that the doors at Michigan State University’s entrance
contribute to the sense of place or community. However, the retention of the original
architectural elements at the University of Michigan and Purdue University attracts people to the
building and invites them to enter, thereby contributing to the sense of place and community.
When evaluating the ballrooms the vast majority (67%) selected the photograph from the
University of Michigan. Some respondent’s comments projected a human presence into the
spaces, “it looks like a good dance floor”, or “brings to mind old 1940’s mixers with students in
suits and cocktail dresses…” Descriptive comments such as “personable”, “very pretty ‘space”,
“I love the windows”, “doesn’t have a ballroom feel”, “relaxed” indicate an emotional
connection to the space giving it a strong sense of community. Further, the responses indicate
that the design of the windows, flooring and lighting contributes to the Sense of Place. The

91

University of Michigan and Purdue University had retained the original design of the windows
and even the original floor at Purdue University. Since these two structures were selected by
87% of the respondents, the retention of the historical integrity is strong indication that these
elements contribute to the sense of place and community. The ballroom at Michigan State
University has been altered the most. The windows had been removed in the 1996 renovation
and replaced with marble wainscoting and carpet was installed on the walls above the
wainscoting. The original light fixtures were replaced with contemporary style fixtures. The
original trims and moldings on the ceiling had been left intact. The Means End Theory
Distribution chart showed that the ballroom at Michigan State University lacked the same
emotional connection of the other two ballrooms, indicating that it lacked a sense of place or
sense of community. It can be surmised that the respondents do care that the original
architectural features remain intact since the photographs most often selected of the ballrooms
were of the buildings that had retained the original architectural features.
The lounges at Purdue University (47%) and at Michigan State University (43%) were
almost equally selected. However, Purdue University was selected for its architecture, historical
and traditional feel, which indicates its sense of place while Michigan State was selected for the
socializing aspects of the furnishings which indicate its sense of community. Many of the
furnishings at Purdue are the original furnishings. Respondents indicate that they selected the
Purdue lounge not only for the intact original architectural features but they also noted that they
like the historical aspect of the furnishings. It’s ironic that University of Michigan was selected
by only 10% of the respondents given that the original architectural features are intact as well as
some of the furnishings. What can be deduced from this reaction is that the photograph showed
the room as a study lounge not a lounge for socializing. Each of the respondents that selected the

92

University of Michigan indicated they liked the room as a place to concentrate and study but no
mention was made of the architecture or furnishings. Michigan State’s Union had recently
undergone a major renovation of the lounge area, which included new furnishings. The lounge is
located in the portion of the building that was added in 1949. As previously mentioned, the
addition was designed using the Stylistic theory approach to renovation, and used the
International style that was prevalent at the time, thereby not continuing the Collegiate Gothic
style that the original building and subsequent 1936 renovation had used. In this particular
situation the retention of historical integrity was not a strong factor for contributing to the Sense
of Place since the room was designed at a later date and never had a Collegiate Gothic design but
rather a more contemporary feel than the other two lounges. The International style of
Architecture is so prevalent with the university campus buildings built in the post-World War II
era that most people do not consider the style as historical. Furthermore, the style is quite often
seen as being out of date rather than historical and not worth preserving. However, the Means
End Theory chart showed that the lounge had a strong sense of community. The contributing
factor for this conclusion is the opinions regarding the type of furnishings selected and the
comfort and arrangement of the furniture that allows for interaction between the individuals and
groups using the building. An ironic twist is that the furnishings selected for the renovation were
very similar in design and layout to the original 1949 renovation furnishings.
Corridors are usually seen as a route from one place to the next. Typically in historic
buildings the main floor corridors are designed to impress, with each subsequent floor’s design
becomes less ostentatious and more serviceable. It is the one area of a building that is usually not
given as much thought to how the space functions other than as an artery for a building. This
usually results in strong architectural elements; doors, windows, paneling and signage such as

93

the corridors at Purdue University. It may have a sense of place however the design usually will
lack a sense of community. The corridor at the University of Michigan was selected by the
majority (80%) of the respondents because of the social aspects of the environment which lends
it to have an undeniable sense of community. The corridor was not treated as just a way to
transport people; it was used as a place to engage people. However, it should be noted that the
corridor at Michigan State University had the same type of seating available and it was selected
by only 7% of the respondents. Therefore, it can be surmised that the architectural features of
the space at the University of Michigan and Purdue University influenced the respondents to
select that space more often. The corridor at the University of Michigan retained the
architectural integrity of the original design and added updated lighting that was in keeping with
the original Collegiate Gothic style thus encouraging a sense of community by incorporating
lounge style seating and good lighting to use as a meeting, study and or lounge space. The
architectural elements in the corridors at Michigan State had been completely obliterated and
replaced with non-descript wallcovering and 1980s medium oak crown molding. An attempt
was made to create an engaging environment with lounge style furnishings, but according to the
Mean’s End Theory charts, without the retention of the historical architectural elements, the
design fell short of fulfilling a sense of community.
The majority of the respondents (60%) selected the paneling detail at the University of
Michigan not just for the paneling itself, but because of the environment where the paneling is
located. The space has retained the wood paneling, trims, coffered ceiling, and lighting that
make the space visually appealing. The common word in the Means End Theory chart
describing the paneling was “warm” (n=5), thus giving the retention of the architectural details a
Sense of Place. Michigan State replaced the original Gothic style paneling with a contemporary

94

style of paneling. It can be surmised that since the paneling detail at Michigan State University
was not selected by any of the respondents, that the retention of the traditional details of the
paneling at the University of Michigan and Purdue University is preferred and contributed to the
buildings sense of place.
Stair hand rails are an indication of the era and style of building. Each subsequent
renovation can be identified by the design of the hand rails. Stair hand rails in older historic
buildings are generally ornate and given a place of prominence. Over the years, hand rails have
lost their ornate design due to budget constraints and ADA requirements. Photographs were
taken in the main staircase in the original portion of each Union building with the exception of
the University of Michigan. This handrail was part of the latest renovation in 1996. The stair
hand rails selections were evenly distributed between Michigan State University (23%) and
University of Michigan (23%), however the majority of the respondents selected the stair hand
rails at Purdue University (47%). 50% (n=7) of the respondents that selected Purdue, did not
provide a reason for their selection. Since the stair hand rails at Michigan State University and at
Purdue University are very similar in design, it is not surprising that the respondents could not
verbalize their reasoning. The statements that were provided in the interview predominately
referred to selecting them because they look original to the building. Since the hand rails at both
Purdue University and Michigan State University are original to the building, what can be
surmised from the responses is that the retention of the historical features is preferred.
The food court at each university is the one area that did not preserve the historical
features, however Purdue University did incorporate a historical aspect to its design, however,
the original historical features had been eliminated in previous renovations. What was being
evaluated was if the respondents felt the design of the food courts is in keeping with the

95

historical characteristics of the building and if the respondents felt that was important. The food
court at Purdue University was selected by the majority (50%) of the respondents not only for the
social aspects of the space, but also because of the architectural features, such as the subway tile,
the blend of the historical with an “updated” venue. The University of Michigan was selected
for the “efficient” seating method (n=2). Michigan State University was selected for its variety
and contemporary seating (n=3). All respondents made their selection primarily for the sense of
community that was provided by the type of seating and the ambiance provided by the
environment. Retention of the historical features was not an important factor in the design of the
food courts.
Windows are the eye to the soul of a building. The removal of the Gothic windows from
the Union building at Michigan State University was the researcher’s motivation for this study.
Through conversations during the interviews, it was found that many of the current students,
guests, faculty and recent alumni are not aware that the Gothic style windows existed. If the
windows had been retained, as they were at the University of Michigan and Purdue University,
would the Union have a stronger sense of community and sense of place? The way to determine
this is to analyze the responses about the windows that are still in existence at the University of
Michigan and Purdue University. The windows at the University of Michigan were selected by
the majority of the respondents (63%). The reasons cited for the selection is the ambiance the
windows create, “they give the room warmth”. The architecture of the windows and
construction materials are other reasons mentioned by the respondents. The words used in the
Means End Theory chart imply positive and expressive emotions are associated with the design
of the windows. Since 93% of the respondents selected the original windows at the University of
Michigan and Purdue University, it can be surmised that the retention of the historical aspects

96

during a renovation is important to the sense of place and contributes to the sense of community
and people feel strongly about the retention of the historical integrity of a structure.
The style of the floors elicited less of an emotional response from the interviews. The
photographs that were analyzed by the respondents were of the floors in the main entrances of
each building. Purdue University’s floor was selected by 30% of the respondents. The design of
this floor has significant historical significance and contributes greatly to the sense of place and
community. The black cross design of the tiles in the floor is representative of the Purdue
students that lost their life in wars. This fact was not known to the interviewees; it was felt that
information could have swayed the results. However, in hindsight it may have been preferred to
mention the meaning behind the tiles on the floor. If the majority of respondents selected that
floor, then it would be clear that the historical integrity is important to retain. The floor at the
University of Michigan was selected by the preponderance of respondents at 43% (n=13)
because they liked the pattern and they thought it would be easy to clean.
The University of Michigan and Purdue University were selected overwhelmingly as
having the preferred design elements in all categories.. Each of the university’s had retained
most of the architectural integrity within the building and exterior of the building. By retaining
the historical integrity, their Unions have a sense of place and contribute to the Sense of
Community on the campus. The supposition that can be determined is that if students, alumni,
faculty and guests were asked before a renovation if the historical integrity should be retained,
the resounding answer would be yes.
Question 2. Do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel that the retention or removal
of historical architectural features interferes with the integrity of the building? Why do
they feel this way?

97

The fourth part of the interview was purposefully designed so that respondents could see
the transition of the original design of the Union at Michigan Agricultural College to the
Michigan State Union building as it exists today. The groups of pictures evaluated where of the
Union Building in 1935 and with one image of a renovated room from 1949. Respondents were
asked to compare the images from the original construction or the 1949 renovation to how the
Union appears today. The results from the interview indicate respondents preferred the images
of the Union building from the decades before 2013.
When respondents discussed the 1935 windows versus the 2013 replacement windows,
the comments regarding the 2013 image included fervent emotions in their comments by stating,
“ugh…this makes me upset”, “2013 sucked the life out of it”, “bruised and bandaged relic.”,
“2013 lacks character and interest…sad”, “why would you cover up MSU’s history, or these
beautiful windows”. When the respondents referred to the 1935 image, the Means End Theory
chart showed words such as “character”, “classic”, “prestigious”, and “inviting” as the common
themes. As mentioned previously, before the interview most of the respondents had not realized
that the Union was designed in the Collegiate Gothic style and that the original windows had
been removed. The resulting opinions indicate that the respondents felt strongly about the
removal of the historical features interfering with the integrity of the building; the original
windows gave the building a classic traditional look resulting in a sense of place. The Collegiate
Gothic style of architecture is what many people imagine a building at a University should look
like. An emotional connection is associated with buildings that fulfill the preconceived idea of
hallowed halls. By removing the parts of the buildings such as the Gothic style windows and
covering them up, as in the ballroom, or replacing them with energy efficient double pane of

98

glass removes the spirit of place. People may use the building for the services provided, but that
emotional connection to the building is removed along with the historical integrity.
It was found by utilizing the Means End Theory chart, that when comparing the original
doors to the current door design, the respondents described the original 1935 front entry doors
by using terminology such as “historic”, “prestigious”, “ornate”, and “unique”. This indicates
that entrances have a strong sense of place. When describing the 2013 doors, the chart indicated
themes of “nondescript”, “bland”, “clean”, “cheap”, and “outdated”. The implication is that the
current design has a weak sense of place. Since the front doors are the first impression of a
building, the description of nondescript and bland is not going to be conducive to an environment
that can build a sense of community. It can be surmised that the respondents would have liked to
retain the original doors and when needed to be replaced, they should have been replicated in a
manner that would be more energy efficient, but still retain the integrity of the original design.
During the 1949 renovation of the Michigan State Union, the new parts of the building
that conjoined the original sections of the building utilized the Conjunctive Theory of renovation.
The newly installed windows were in the original Collegiate Gothic style. The new addition
utilized Stylistic Theory of renovation, utilizing the International style of architecture. While the
architectural elements in the transition areas retained the Collegiate Gothic style, the furnishings
were contemporary, blending the old with the new. The Means End Theory chart showed
themes that describe the windows from 1949 as; “character”, “welcoming”, “warm”,
“gorgeous”, “traditional”, “visually stimulating”, and “scholarly”. Thus indicating that the
respondents felt the original windows gave the environment a sense of place. However, the
current windows were described as; “generic”, “sterile”, “boring”, “high performance”, and
“uninviting”. One student went so far as to say that they are not as interested in studying in the

99

2013 environment. The opinions of the respondents indicate that they feel that the loss of the
historical integrity also resulted in a loss of the sense of place.
When respondents answered why they felt the way they did about the 1949 image, the
statements reflected an emotional connection to the space:


“A much more welcoming appearance, warm. The curtains seem to add a nice
touch”.



“Beautiful – old, traditional and in keeping with the character. 2013 looks like a
boring, non-descript office building”.



“1949, 2013 Union in one word… yuck! The 1949 picture is welcoming and
warm with a lot of detail in the windows. Looks like a place you want to gather
and spend time. The 2013 picture is generic, sterile, uninviting and looks like an
office or hospital waiting room”.

The last description infers that the space from 1949 also had a sense of community; that it
is a place the invites participation. When respondents answered why they felt the way they did
about the 2013 photograph, the answers were analytic and unemotional:


“I suppose 2013 is easier to clean or repair vs. multiple glass panels. Better view,
probably better light”.



“Easily to clean and allows most light”.



“Unobstructed windows – more light”.



“More modern, high performance”.

These responses are not indicative of a sense of community. It can be noted that the responses
are about the performance of the windows and direct the attention out of the room to the exterior
view. A place that is strong in community engages people into the room and encourages
interaction. The statements made by the preponderance of the respondents indicate that students,
faculty, staff and alumni do feel that the integrity of the building is affected when the historical
elements are altered or removed.

100

Question 3. Do students, faculty, staff and alumni feel that the sense of community
in the student Union is modified by the loss or retention of the original architectural
features? Why do they feel this way?
In over one hundred of the responses reference was made to the sense of community
provided by the Union building. Various themes throughout the charts indicate they feel this way
because the space is: inviting, has emotional connection, has specific amenities, and promotes
social interaction. The first part of the interview asked the interviewees, “do you think the
(Michigan State University) Union serves as a gathering space for the entire campus
community.” Only one response indicated that they felt the heritage of the environment
contributed to the sense of community with the majority of the responses referring to the
amenities provided by the Union for the reason to visit the building. This question was
purposefully asked before the respondents had looked at the photographs of the historical
elements of all three Unions. The respondents had not thought of the space as historical because
the prevalent architectural features that would indicate the historical aspect of the Michigan State
Union had been removed during renovations. The Michigan State Union is the one Union out of
the three where the interior no longer retained any of the original Collegiate Gothic design. Since
the interviews were conducted on the campus of Michigan State University, most of the
respondents had not associated the building with having historical significance. The Purdue
Union and the Union at the University of Michigan have a sense of community that is a direct
result of the retention of the historical features. If the Michigan State Union is to have a sense of
community it would to come from some other cause.
According to Figure 14, which shows the distribution of respondents that analyzed the
current photographs of the lounges from all three of the Union buildings, there was only a 4%

101

difference between the Purdue Union and the Michigan State University Union. In Table 9, the
Means End Distribution which analyzed the common themes in the responses about the lounges,
a historical theme is mentioned four times, which reflects a feeling of heritage and all of them are
in reference to the Purdue Union. Most of the responses when referring to the Purdue Union, not
only mention the historical aspect of the furnishings, comfort of the space, but also the
architectural features. This is not so with either the Union at the University of Michigan nor the
Michigan State Union buildings. It is true that if a space has a feeling of heritage, the occupants
will feel an emotional connection to the space. Heritage is only one aspect for an emotional
connection. An emotional connection theme is mentioned 14 times in the responses, but not all
of the comments reference the historical aspects of the lounges. Many of the respondents refer to
the Michigan State Union as having a sense of community because it is comfortable, relaxing, a
place to hang out; none of the comments refer to the architectural features or reflected on the
historical aspect of the room. In this particular situation, the sense of community is not
connected to the retention or removal of the historical features. This was the only instance where
a sense of community was strong in an area that had not retained the historical integrity. The
lounge at the Purdue Union was still selected by the majority of respondents indicating that the
retention of historical integrity does contribute to the sense of community, but a design that
allows for interaction and comfort will also contribute.
Conclusion
In order for a strong sense of community to develop, a sense of place needs to be deepseated. Retention of the historical integrity is an important aspect in developing that sense of
place. The findings from the interviews determined that the removal of historic architecture and
finishes does affect the sense of place, thereby affecting the sense of community. The strongest

102

indication of this was found when respondents were asked to evaluate the corridors of the three
different universities. When comparing the photographs, the majority of respondents selected
the photograph from the University of Michigan. This photograph shows a corridor where lounge
seating is incorporated into the design. The photograph shows the original Collegiate Gothic
style wall paneling, the original coffered ceiling, trims and moldings, the original floor and
newer area rugs that emphasize the seating groupings. The lounge furniture selected for the
space is traditional and placed into conversation groupings. The corridor at the Michigan State
Union does not have any identifiable architectural features but does have wallcovering, wall to
wall carpeting and pictures on the wall showing student life on campus. The seating selected for
the space is contemporary and placed in conversation groupings. The photograph of the corridor
at Purdue shows the original Collegiate Gothic paneling, the original limestone arches and the
original flooring. The type of seating is a wooden bench placed against the wall. The corridor at
Purdue was selected more often than the corridor at Michigan State University; even though the
same type of seating is available in the photographs of the University of Michigan and at
Michigan State University. The difference is in the architecture of the Union at the University of
Michigan and Purdue University. The interviewees felt a connection to the paneling, coffered
ceilings, traditional furnishings and details of the space indicating a sense of place that is creating
a sense of community. Whereas, when observing the photograph of the corridor at Michigan
State University, the respondents felt no connection to the space, thus resulting in a lack of a
sense of place or sense of community.
Of the ten groups of photographs illustrating various features from the three different
universities, the University of Michigan was selected as the preferred choice 60% (n=6), Purdue
University was selected 40% (n=4) and Michigan State University was not selected as the

103

preferred feature in any of the categories. As mentioned previously, all of the universities were
originally designed in a similar fashion; however, the renovations over the decades have been
approached differently by each university. The University of Michigan and Purdue University
retained most of the original architectural features, while Michigan State University eliminated
most of them. A space needs to be flexible, adaptable and occupants need to have a sense of
ownership. That ownership is lost when the architectural elements of the building are altered
beyond recognition. Students, alumni, faculty and staff won’t feel that sense of belonging which
is a big part of building a sense of community. Since two out of three universities were able to
retain the architectural integrity, and these were also the two universities selected by the majority
of the respondents, preservation should be given the highest priority. As can be determined from
the interviews, consistency of the structure contributes to that sense of ownership. What can
also be determined from the interviews and themes through the Means End Theory Distribution
charts is that students, alumni, faculty and staff, for the most part, would like to see updates and
renovations include the retention of architectural elements. As Rullman & Wahlquist (2012)
presented in their summit, most decisions are made in a “silo”, not involving the people that will
be utilizing the spaces. It is important in the programming phase of design to interview the
prospective occupants to determine what is valued by the groups that will be using the building.
The respondents commented that the location of the building on campus helps to
contribute to the Sense of Place. On the campus of Michigan State University, the north end of
campus is the predominate location of the pre-World War II buildings, including the Union. It is
located along the main entrance to the north end of campus and is easily identifiable making it a
landmark for the campus. Many of the respondents indicated that the historical aspect of the
north end of the campus was important to maintain. The University of Michigan Union is

104

located in the center of Central Campus which is where the university had its beginnings. The
Purdue Union is located at the main entrance to the University. Knell and Latta (2006) indicate
that one of the guidelines for a Union building is that it should be a landmark on the campus.
Each of the Union buildings fulfills that requirement by being a true landmark which is centrally
located or near one of the main entrances and easily identifiable. Since each of the buildings are
landmarks, it is not surprising that elements of the building are used as trademarks. Purdue
University uses a stylized image of their windows as the trademark for the Union building,
Michigan State University uses an image of the south entrance doorway and the University of
Michigan uses an image of the main tower. It is important to note that each university has
selected an unaltered feature from the Union building as its trademark. It is significant that
Michigan State University selected as their trademark an historic element of the building that has
not been altered when so much of the building has lost its historical integrity. Since the
universities decided that certain architectural details are what identify the Union building and
even to some extent the university itself, it is imperative that these features be preserved. These
iconic images are indicative that the buildings are landmarks and important to the sense of
community for the campus. Any renovation that alters the physical attributes of the building
should be considered with care.
When respondents were asked about the Union being appropriate to the University’s
educational mission, 50% of the respondents felt that the Union was appropriate, within that
50%, 27% (n=8) felt that connection to the past was an important factor. Of the respondents that
said the Union did not contribute to the educational mission, the lack of architectural character
was a concern: “Outside architectural features more so than current interior; overall it should
look and feel “older” and “scholarly.” Two respondents commented that they felt that historical

105

integrity had been diluted or eliminated, especially in the interior. Of the respondents that stated
that the Union was appropriate to the educational mission, they felt that it is the ambiance of the
interior design that makes it appropriate, stating: “It provides a calm environment for people to
study, so yes it is appropriate”. Since the interviews were being conducted on the campus of
Michigan State University, the Mission Statement from the university website was available for
the interviewees to review, however no one asked to look at it. Retention of the historical
integrity does not fulfill the Mission Statement for Michigan State University. However, future
plans for the Michigan State Union building include an Engagement Center. The campus of
Michigan State University has divided its campus into neighborhoods. An Engagement Center
has been placed within each neighborhood. Engagement Centers bring together resources that
help to fulfill the Mission Statement.
The results of this study found that the retention of the historical integrity is important in
order to build a sense of place which ultimately creates a sense of community. Unions were built
on campuses in order to bring individuals together in one area of campus. Retention of the
historical integrity helps to create an environment that has a spirit of place and a sense of place
that continues to bring people together. But it is not just the historical integrity, it is also the
amenities. Even with great amenities, if the building does not have continuity that contributes to
the heritage and a sense of place, the students won’t continue to use the building. The historical
integrity gives a feeling of stability and a belonging which contributes to the sense of place and a
sense of community. A building that retains that collegiate feeling by retaining the original
architecture becomes a point of pride for the university and a place that alumni want to return to
and faculty and staff will use. A building can be historical, but if the historical integrity is not left
in place, then the only way future students will understand the history is by reading a plaque on a

106

wall or looking for a display that tells them the buildings history. The only way alumni will
remember is to look through old photographs. When the historical features are removed from the
building, it begins to look like every other building on campus – it is no longer a special place.
Study Limitations
This research is important in contributing to the knowledge that the retention of historical
attributes contributes to the sense of place and the sense of community on a university campus.
However, there are limitations associated with this study.
Limited Generalization of Findings.
Only three Union buildings were selected to be researched. All three of the Union
buildings are located in the Midwest region of the United States. Also, the quantity and the
limited demographic profile of respondents involved in the interviews may not be a clear
representation of the general population. Additionally, only people on the campus of Michigan
State University campus were interviewed.
Limited Interview Interpretation.
Even though every attempt was made to use an unbiased approach to the interpretation of
the interviews, this research was self-reported and the interpretations of the findings could have
been biased in some responses. Every attempt was made to eliminate the bias and report as
accurately as possible.
Notwithstanding these limitations, it is anticipated that the findings in this research may
help the future planning for universities. Knowing these limitations, further research should be
encouraged. The following section is some suggested ideas for additional study.
Future Research.

107

Since this is the first known research involving the effects of the retention of historical
integrity on structures, there is ample opportunity to develop further research. An area of
research that was not analyzed was to compare the revenue produced by each Union building. It
would be advantageous to compare each area of the buildings to determine if the buildings that
retained the historical integrity produce more revenue or if the building that has completely
renovated the structure is generating more monies. For instance, does the lack of windows in the
ballroom at Michigan State prohibit it from being rented as much for weddings and other social
functions as the ballrooms that have retained the original windows?
It would be helpful if this type research could be expanded to other regions of the United
States. Further research could incorporate how various regions have handled the growth of the
campuses and the incorporation of the Union building on the campus. It would be important to
know how many universities have retained their original Union building and how many have
abandoned them in favor of a new structure.
Additional, research by Dober (2010) on campus heritage could be expanded. His book
involves an overview of historic buildings and how their heritage contributes to the overall goals
of an institution. Research could be conducted on how buildings have been renovated and if
these renovations have affected the overall heritage of the building.
Thirdly, another form of renovation Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) could be considered
before any form of demolition. This form of renovation was not discussed in the types of
renovations with the Union buildings, since none of the Union buildings in this study were being
considered for demolition. ARP is the conversion of a building that was built for one purpose
and changing that purpose to accommodate a new need. (Langston. et al, 2008) The determining
factor on renovation of a building for its ARP factor may ultimately be influenced by who is on

108

the planning committee. Each person on that committee may have a different interpretation of
what is an important criterion for renovation or demolition. Many people who view buildings
solely as tools that require upkeep have ease of maintenance as a top priority, as was seen in
some of the interview responses. Those who value the artistry of architecture strive to preserve a
building’s original integrity. Hewitt (1994) in his article, “Architecture for a Contingent
Environment” looked at a building as an ever changing entity that is composed of living layers.
Each layer is an indication of what the building was used for in a previous existence. He argued
that a designer or architect that looks at a building as it is right now is not allowing the richness
of the multiplicity of each layer of history to be formulated. The aesthetics of the building may
not be to our sense of beauty or good design, but understanding the development of the design
might help to determine the course of the future of the building. According to Hewitt (1994), in
Europe, designers are taught from the beginning that existing buildings are to be respected, they
know that change must be made within the confines of the history of the building and they
recognize ecological impacts of their decisions. Conversely, in the United States, architects look
at buildings as a way to create something new in order to leave their mark. By erasing the
existence of a building, a part of history or some tradition has also been erased (p.199).
Method for Strategic Assessment
For many, campus buildings have an emotional connection. Planning committee
members however need to look at renovation of the building from an analytical point of view. A
strategic assessment calculation for determining potential for adaptive reuse opportunities was
developed by Bond University Professor Craig Langston to assist with this process (Langston, et
al., 2008). The calculation is based on seven factors of obsolescence: physical, economic,
functional, technological, social, legal, and environmental. Each area is evaluated and assigned a

109

measurement to determine the building’s useful life. Another measurement referred to as the
“physical life calculator”: it starts with a predictor of how long the building service life should be
and then it modifies that age according to quality of maintenance, environmental aspects,
occupational profile and structural integrity (Langston, et al., 2008). While this method is good
for influencing the financial position, many buildings that have a lot of life in them could be
marked for demolition by these measurements.
Financial aspects heavily influence whether a building may be demolished or renovated.
It may be considerably less expensive to obtain permits in certain cities to demolish than to
renovate (Linn, 2008). Empty buildings may be considered blight in the community and even
landmarks may be demolished if renovation is not considered a fiscally responsible option.
Advantages of Restoration
Restoration of a building is the ultimate form of recycling. In a study at the University of
Surrey in Great Britain, it was found that there was an overall cost savings in renovation rather
than new construction (University Renovation: A Case Study, 2008). Unfortunately, this study
did not indicate a percentage of the actual building cost savings. In a comparison between the
costs of new construction versus renovation of existing buildings, it was found that renovation
avoided the environmental impact of a new build. In addition, the renovation actually generated
HVAC savings from new window installation and lowered building related CO2 emissions (p.1).
Another form of recycling is “mining” the materials from a building that cannot avoid
demolition. This reuse can add to the character of new building as well as recycle materials.
Consideration into the public infrastructure also needs to be evaluated. New construction means
new sewerage, drainage, water, gas and communication. It is important to reduce energy and
material consumption that new construction would create. Langston calculates that buildings

110

consume 32% of the world’s resources, 12% of water consumption, 40% of waste to landfill and
40% of air and greenhouse gas emissions (Langston, et al., 2008).
The common thread through all the research was that ARP can have a real impact on the
retention of the character of a community, its continuance, and ultimately, the environment.
Renovations also need to consider future use of the buildings. With so many changes that have
taken place in the past 10 years – wireless infrastructure, LED lighting, codes, accessibility - the
most important common denominator in design is flexibility (Dickinson, 2001). A building
should not just be viewed as an artistic statement representing history, but should also be viewed
as a living, changing artifact for human use. Its manipulation by succeeding generations becomes
a matter of historical interpretation as well as architectural design (Hewitt, 1994). Buildings
should not be demolished because of demolition’s comparative ease and short term cost
effectiveness. Emotional factors such as attitudes about preserving the heritage of our buildings
for future generations to enjoy need to be considered as well.

111

APPENDICES

112

APPENDIX A: LETTER FOR USE OF PREVIOUSLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

113

APPENDIX B: IRB CERTIFICATE OF TRAINING

114

APPENDIX C: CONSENT LETTER

Dear Sir or Madam: 
My name is Linda Luoma and I am a Master of Arts candidate in Interior Design at Michigan State 
University.  You are invited to participate in a research study regarding your opinion of how you feel 
about Union Buildings and how they are maintained during a renovation.  The first part of the study will 
determine if the original architectural features of the building should be retained and the second part of 
the study will determine if the renovation influences your emotional connection to the building.  By 
participating in this study you will be providing essential feedback on how future renovations should be 
conducted. 
Your involvement in this study will take approximately twenty minutes.  Your answers will remain 
anonymous.  Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent permitted by law.  Your 
participation is completely voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to 
answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without consequence.  Please 
answer all the questions and submit it to me after completion.  Please sign below indicating your 
voluntary participation. 
If you have questions about this study, please contact Linda Luoma at luomal@msu.edu, or Dr. Allen at 
allenapr@msu.edu.  If you have any concerns or questions about your role and rights as a research 
participant, or you would like to register a complaint about this survey, you may contact anonymously if 
you wish, MSU’s Human Research Protection Program by phone (517)355‐2180, fax (517)432‐4503, e‐
mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI. 
Thank you so much for your time and participation. 
Sincerely, 
 
Linda Luoma, MA Candidate 
School of Planning, Design, & Construction 
 April Allen, Ph.D. 
Assistant Professor 
 
Accepted and Agreed____________________________________________________ 

115

APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Demographic Information
1.

Male ______ Female______

2. Age
a. 18-28
b. 29-39
c. 40-50
d. 50 and over
3. Highest level of education completed
a. High School
b. Bachelor’s Degree
c. Master’s Degree
d. Doctoral or Professional Degree
4. University Attended________________________
5. Dates Attended University___________________
6. Are you still attending the University? ________________
7. Anticipated Degree upon completion_________________
8. Anticipated graduation date_________________________
9. How many years did you live in campus housing? ________
10. If not a student, reason for visiting the university?
_______________________________________________

116

APPENDIX D: Demographic Information (continued)
11. Race?
a. American Indian
b. Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
c. Asian or Asian American
d. Black or African American
e. Hispanic or Latino
f. Non-Hispanic White
12. How often would you estimate that you visited the Union
a. Freshman year__________
b. Sophomore year________
c. Junior year_____________
d. Senior Year____________
e. Graduate student________
13. What was the main reason that you visited the Union
a. Banking
b. Entertainment
c. Food
d. Convenience Store
e. Bookstore
f. To study
g. Attend a meeting
h. Social event
i. Work
j. Other __________________________________
14. What do you think of the current renovation?

117

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW

Interview
1. Do you think the Union is one of the campus’s primary landmarks? If so, why?

2. Do you think the interior and architectural character is appropriate to the institution’s
educational mission? If so, how so?

3. Do you think the style of the interior of the Union complement and contribute to the
overall setting of the campus? If so, how?
4. Does the building represent the University’s spirit and tradition?
Yes____________ No____________
5. Do you think the Union serves as a gathering space for the entire campus community?
Yes____________ No____________
If so, how?

118

What makes a Union building look
Collegiate?
When looking at the following images, in your
opinion, select the one image on each page that is
your ideal image of what a University should
look like. Why do you feel that way?

119

Figure 21: Exterior architects proposal sketches of structures

120

Figure 22: Front entrances of Union building

121

Figure 23: Images of ballrooms

122

Figure 24: Images of lounges

123

Figure 25: Images of corridors

124

Figure 26: Images of paneling detail

125

Figure 27: Images of stair hand rails

126

Figure 28: Images of food courts

127

Figure 29: Images of windows

128

Figure 30: Images of flooring

129

Figure 31: Images of MSU Union windows 1949 and 2013

130

Figure 32: Images of MSU Union 1935 and 2013

131

REFERENCES

132

REFERENCES
2012 The Social Welfare History Project (Photographer). (1920). Hull house. [Print Photo].
Retrieved from
http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/hullhouse1.jpg
ACUI. Fifty-One Facts About College Unions. ACUI. Print.
ACUI: What is community. (2012, October 12). Retrieved from
http://www.acui.org/content.aspx?menu_id=30&id=298
Audrain, C. W. (2011, April-June). The stewardship of campus heritage.
Planning for Higher Education, 39(3), 18-35.
(Before 1910). Pennsylvania state houston hall. (before 1910). [Print Photo]. Retrieved from
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09
Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Hardmondsworth,
Middlesex, England: Penquin.
Butts, P. (1971). The college union idea. Stanford, CA: Editor of Publications of The Association
of College Unions-International.
Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture
education and practice : a special report. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990). Campus life: In search of
community. Princeton, N.J: The Foundation.
Coolen, H., & Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes.
Journal of Housing and Built environment, 16, 285-306.

133

Cox, A. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, (2000). Preserving historic identity
in the United States: Theoretical and practical lessons for maintaining historic character
in small Virginia towns.
Dickinson, J. , 2004-08-14 "Adaptive Reuse: Towards a Sociology of the Built
Environment" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA,
Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p108820_index.html
Dober, R. (2005). Campus heritage: Ann appreciation of the history & tradition of college and
university architecture. Society for college and University Planning. DOI: www.scup.org
Dupont, J. (1966). Viollet-le-duc and restoration in france. National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Historic Preservation Today, 3, 8-21.
Essential architecture; Pond and Pond. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.essential-architecture.com/ARCHITECT/ARCH-Pond.htm
FTL Design. (2006, October 22). Zenitherm architectural wall & floor material; product
samples, brochures and specifications from the 1920's. Retrieved from
http://zenitherm.ftldesign.com/index.htm.
Gordon, D. National Institute of Building Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2010). Student commons. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ncef.org/pubs/greenschools.pdf
Hewitt, M. (1994). Architecture for a contingent environment, Journal of Architectural
Education, 4, 197-209. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425338.
Humphreys, E. O. (1946). College unions. Ithaca, NY: The Association of College Unions.
Hunt, S. (2011, November 9). A university renovation: A case study. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/university-renovation-case-study.html
Hull house. In (2006). New World Encyclopedia. Paragon House Publishers. Retrieved from
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hull_House

134

International National Trusts Organisation, (2013). Explore america's 11 most endangered
historic places . Retrieved from National Trust for Historic Preservation website:
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/
James, N. (2001). Mapping the sense of place; using GIS and the internet to produce cultural
resource inventory for South Kingstown, RI. Providence, RI: Retrieved from
http://envstudies.brown.edu/oldsite/Thesis/2001/james
Jokilehto, J. (1985). Authenticity in Restoration Principles and Practices, Bulletin of the
Association for Preservation Technology, 17, (3/4), 5-11. Retrieved from
http://jstor.org/stable/1494094
Key, J. (1997). Research design in occupational education: Module r14, qualitative research.
Retrieved from
http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage21.htm
Knell, P., & Latta, S. (2006). College union dynamic; flexible solutions for successful facilities.
Bloomington, IN: Association of College Unions International.
Langston, C. Wong, F., Hui, E. & Shen, L. (2008). Strategic Assessment of Building Adaptive
Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong, Science Direct, (43), 1709-1718.
Langston, C.(2012) "Validation of the adaptive reuse potential (ARP) model using iconCUR",
Facilities, Vol. 30 Iss: 3/4, pp.105 – 123
Lindberg, E., Garling, T., Montgomery, H., & Waara, R. (1987). People's evaluation of housing
attributes; a study of underlying beliefs and values. Scandinavian Housing and Planning,
4, 81-103. doi: 0281 5737
Linn, R. & Linn, A. (2008). Everything is Going to be Alright: Demolition and Adaptive Reuse
in Detroit, The Next American City, (17-18). Retrieved November 27, 2009 from:
http://americancity.org/magazine/article/everything-is-going-to-be-alright-demolitionand-adaptive-reuse-in-detroit.
Lounsbury, J., & DeNeui, D. (1995). Psychological sense of community on campus. College
Student Journal, 29(3), 270-277.

135

Maul, S. (1994). Building community on campus; a compendium of practical ideas.
Bloomington, IN: Association of College Unions International.
McMillan, David W., and David M. Chavis. "Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory."
Journal of community psychology 14.1 (1986): 6-23. PsycINFO. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.
McRobbie, M. (2009). Building on a Glorious IU Tradition: Breaking New Ground in the Arts
and Humanities; speech given on the campus of Indiana University during
groundbreaking for Theatre and Drama Renovation. Retrieved from
http://www.iu.edu/~pres/speeches/2009/20091017-01.shtml
MSU physical plant facilities information tool . (2012). Retrieved from http://eas.msu.edu/fit/bin/
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. (2013). America's 11 most
endangered historic places. Retrieved from
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/
The new m.s.c. union memorial building. In (1925), Wolverine (pp. 364-372).
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bars, hair salons and other
hangouts at the heart of the community. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press
Peckham, H. H. (1994). The making of the University of Michigan, 1817-1992. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library.
Polikoff, Barbara Garland. With One Bold Act : The Story of Jane Addams, p. 55, New York:
Boswell Books, 1999.
Pond, I. K. (1905, June). The life of architecture. The Architectural Record, XVIII(1), 146-160.
Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006790532
Pond, I. K. (1931, June). The college union. The Architectural Forum, 697-778.
Purdue university: Purdue memorial union; about us, architecture. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.union.purdue.edu/HTML/PMU/AboutUsArchitecture.aspx
Purdue university; Purdue memorial union; about us, history. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.union.purdue.edu/HTML/PMU/AboutUsHistory.aspx

136

Purdue memorial union. In (1928). C. Antle (Ed.), 1928 Debris (Vol. 40, p. 127). Retrieved from
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/debris,20437
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation.
Journal of Advertising Research, February/March, 11-31.
Rullman, L., Van den Kieboom, J., & Van Jura, M (2012). Physical Place on campus: A report
on the summit on building community. Bloomington, IN: Association of College Unions
International
Rullman, L. J., & Wahlquist, Z. (2012). Physical place on campus: A summit on building
community. Bloomington, IN: Association of College Unions international.
Ruskin, J. (1859). The seven lamps of architecture. New York, New York: J. Wiley.
Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015035347973
Santasiero, E. (2002). The "third place": Essential for campuses and for communities. Lawlor
Review, XI(1), 10-13. Retrieved from
http://www.thelawlorgroup.com/sites/default/files/pdf/tlr_2002fall.pdf
Sarason, S. (1974). The psychological sense of community. (1ST ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Shaw, W. (2011). Michigan union. Retrieved from
http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1t43jz8j/http://umhistory.dc.umich.edu/mort/central/west
%20of%20state/Michigan%20Union/index.html
Stanford, L., & Dewhurst, C. (2002). MSU buildings, places , spaces; Architecture and the
campus park of Michigan State University. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Press.
Steele, F. (1981). The sense of place. Boston, MA: CBI Publishing Company, Inc
Thomas, D. (2008). Michigan State College: John Hannah and the creation of a world
university, 1926-1969. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Toynbee Hall. (2012, August 19). Retrieved from http://www.toynbeehall.org.uk

137

Viollet-le-Duc, E. (1860). Discourses on architecture. (Vol. I). New York, NY: Grove Press.
Weeks, K. National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services. (2001). Standards for
rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitation Weeks, K. National Park Service,
Heritage Preservation Services. (2001). Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for
rehabilitating historic buildings. Retrieved from website:
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_standards.htm
Widder, K. R. (2005). Michigan Agricultural College: The evolution of a land grant philosophy,
1855-1925. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (Fourth ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zipp, Y. (2013, February 20). [Web log message]. Retrieved from
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/02/western_michigan_universitys
_e_3.html
Zukowski, J. ( 2011). Michigan historical collections, Bentley Historical Library, University of
Michigan; finding aid for pond family papers, 1841-1939. Retrieved from
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl852090?byte=37318690;focusrgn=bioghist;subview=standard;view=reslist.

138