Architecture of Institutionalized Dwelling for Students
https://doi.org/10.31675/1607-1859-2026-28-3-9-22
EDN: BBBPVY
Abstract
This article substantiates the relevance of research into institutionalized dwelling for students, where residential functions are integrated with educational, social, and leisure activities. The article notes the value of the 21st-century international experience for the development of this type of dwelling.
Purpose: The aim of the work is to identify the architecture, planning, and types of social infrastructure in institutionalized dwelling for students based on the analysis of the 21st-century international experience.
Methodology: The integrated approach to the study utilizes comparative, architectural and planning, and socio-functional analysis. Six completed student housing projects in Switzerland, Slovenia, the USA, Germany, and India (2006–2023) are examined.
Research findings: The analysis identifies three types of the public space organization: horizontal foundations (integration of functions at lower levels), vertical communication cores, and hybrid models. Three types of residential units are identified (communal apartments, individual apartments with minimal floor area, and hybrid models), as well as key architectural techniques that facilitate the social interaction, including the creation of "bridges" that provide horizontal connections–multifunctional zones that unite public spaces.
Practical implication: The identified types have practical significance and can be adapted for the development of similar projects in Russia.
Value: It is shown that the key design principle of modern institutionalized dwelling for students is the creation of a multifunctional environment that integrates residential, educational, and leisure functions into a single spatial structure. This integration is proven to meet a significant portion of student needs within the campus.
About the Author
E. L. Ogienko
RUDN University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeny L. Ogienko, PhD, Senior Lecturer
6, Miklukho-Maklay Str., 117198, Moscow
References
1. Knyazev, M., Vasiliev, N. Architecture of Institutionalized Dwelling for Students in Interwar Moscow. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2019; 1(46): 41–54. (In Russian)
2. Ogienko, E.L. Typology of Social Housing for Young People in Europe, America, Asia in the 20–21st Centuries. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel'stvo. 2024; (3): 176–184. https://doi.org/10.22337/2077-9038-2024-3-176-184 (In Russian)
3. Kutuzov, V.V. Housing Provision in a Socially Oriented Market Economy. Moscow: TSNIIEHP zhilishcha, 1994. 290 p. (In Russian)
4. Kiyanenko, K.V. Development of a Socio-Functional Model of a Public Residential Complex. Vologda, 2010. 24 p. (In Russian)
5. The State of Housing in Europe. Available: www.housingeurope.eu/the-state-of-housing-in-europe-in-2021/ (accessed February 22, 2026).
6. Braae, E., Steiner, H., Riesto, S. Glaser, M. Examining the Publicness of Spaces on European Social Housing Estates: A Position Paper. Architectural Research Quarterly. 2023; 27(2); 143–157. DOI: 10.1017/S1359135523000155. Available: https://clck.ru/3RR92Z (accessed September 23, 2025).
7. Davis, S. The Architecture of Affordable Housing University. California Press, 1995. 208 p.
8. Dalla Caneva, A., Bertolazzi, A. De vliesgevel in the Netherlands between construction and representation. Past and present-day experiences in social housing. Rivistatema.it. 2024; (3). DOI: 10.10.30682/тема100009
9. Kutsalo, О. Principles of Social Housing Development in Spain. In: Proc. 5th Int. Sci. Conf. ‘Concepts for the Development of Society Scientific Potential’, Prague, Czech Republic, January 19–20, 2024. Prague, 2024. Pp. 556–573. DOI: 10.51582/interconf.19-20.01.2024.065
10. Lopes, F., Figueiredo, L., Gil, J., Trigueiro, E. Evaluating the Impact of Social Housing Policies: Measuring Accessibility Changes when Individuals Move to Social Housing Projects. Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science. 2023; 51(7): DOI: 10.1177/23998083231218774
11. Sustainable Housing: Principles & Practice. London, New York: E & FN Spon, 2000. 154 p. ISBN 0-419-24620-7.
12. Bigonnesse, C., Weeks, L., Puplampu, V., et al. Cohousing Communities and Social Determinants of Health in Later Life: A Scoping Review Protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 2023; 21(6): 1337–1343. DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00068
13. Fraser, J.C., Bazuin, J.T., Chaskin, R. Making Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Work for Low-Income Households a Multiyear Assessment of Community Impact Programming. DOI: 10.1080/ 10511482.2012.737408. Available: https://clck.ru/3RRFQ8 (accessed September 23, 2025).
14. Wang, H., Fang, N., Li, X. Exploring Differences Between Daily Activity Spaces and Access to Urban Resources in Suburban Affordable Housing Based on the Different Income Groups: A Case of Nanjing, China. Sustainability. 2025; (17): 561. DOI: 10.3390/su17020561
15. Kwok-yu, Edward, Lee, Wai-wan, Vivien, Chan. Introduction: Housing and Community Building. Inclusive Housing Management and Community Wellbeing. 2024. Pp. 1–22. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-97-2132-0_1. 2024
Review
For citations:
Ogienko E.L. Architecture of Institutionalized Dwelling for Students. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. JOURNAL of Construction and Architecture. 2026;28(3):9-22. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31675/1607-1859-2026-28-3-9-22. EDN: BBBPVY
Views:
66
JATS XML
Email this article 