University residential colleges have become a transformative model in higher education, fostering holistic student development by bridging the gap between living and learning. Rooted in the concept of living-learning collaboration, residential colleges seek to redefine student residential areas as educational spaces that nurture intellectual, social, and emotional growth. However, the implementation of this concept in Chinese universities remains limited due to the lack of a wellestablished education system and the dominance of traditional residential models that prioritize basic living functions. This paper takes the residential college system of Yale University—a pioneer and exemplar in this field—as a case study, aiming to explore its development history, operational mechanisms, and spatial design strategies, and to extract insights applicable to the Chinese context. Yale’ s residential colleges, with nearly a century of history, are not merely living quarters but are intentionally designed as integrated learning environments. They embody a revival of the early “collegiate way of living”, in which students and faculty members share communal life, meals, academic discourse, and cultural experiences. Yale’s system evolved through three distinct phases: the initial construction of ten colleges in the 1930s with enclosed courtyards and Gothic architectural styles; the experimental modernist designs of the 1960s, and the completion of Benjamin Franklin and Pauli Murray Colleges in 2017, which combine traditional aesthetics with modern spatial programming. At the institutional level, Yale’s residential colleges are positioned as educational entities that operate alongside, but independently from, academic departments. While departments oversee specialized instruction and degree programs, residential colleges are tasked with providing social support, academic advising, and co-curricular enrichment. Each college houses around 400 undergraduates and is led by a Head of College and a Dean—both faculty members who live in the college and engage closely with students. Additional roles, such as residential fellows, writing tutors, and peer mentors, form a supportive ecosystem that fosters living-learning collaboration. In terms of spatial environment design, Yale’s residential colleges exemplify how architectural planning can support educational goals. The newly built colleges employ a holistic design approach that organizes functions into three main categories: daily life spaces, educational activity spaces, and logistical support spaces. Rather than separating living and learning, the design emphasizes functional integration. Student and faculty residences are strategically placed to encourage informal interaction; dining halls serve not only as eating areas but also as primary social hubs, around which academic and recreational spaces are clustered; and education-related facilities such as libraries, lounges, and studios are interwoven throughout the colleges to facilitate spontaneous engagement and informal learning. Moreover, the design introduces composite space strategies, where traditional daily life spaces are endowed with multiple uses. Student suites are configured as shared apartments to balance privacy and community. Heads of College residences double as administrative, social, and ceremonial spaces; and the Buttery—originally a small student-run eatery—has evolved into a multifunctional venue for informal learning, gatherings, and creative activities. These hybridized spaces encouragestudents to blur the lines between everyday life and academic inquiry, making learning a continuous and ambient process.A crucial element of the spatial strategy is atmosphere creation rooted in a sense of belonging and cultural identity. The colleges use inward-facing courtyards of varying scales to create intimate, protected environments amidst the urban campus. Natural elements, such as green courtyards and varied landscaping, enhance the sensory experience and promote emotional well-being. Culturally, the architectural language maintains continuity with Yale’s historic campus through materials like brick and stone, while decorative elements—such as stained glass, symbolic carvings, and thematic motifs—reflect Yale’s traditions, local heritage, and prominent alumni, turning the built environment into an immersive cultural narrative. Drawing on Yale’s experience, the paper offers several implications for the development of residential colleges in China. First, it emphasizes the importance of clearly defining the institutional role of residential colleges within the broader university structure. Establishing living-learning collaboration as a core educational objective requires alignment across spatial design, curriculum activities, and personnel structure. Second, Chinese universities are encouraged to move beyond the “patchwork” approach—where living and learning spaces are simply juxtaposed—and instead adopt a more immersive and integrative model. This includes using daily life space organization to foster seamless transitions, expanding the functional capacity of daily spaces to allow for diverse educational activities, and creating atmospheres with a sense of belonging and cultural meaning. Ultimately, this study underscores that residential colleges, when supported by a coherent educational system and thoughtfully designed spaces, can serve as dynamic platforms for interdisciplinary learning, social development, and cultural transmission. By translating and adapting the lessons from Yale’s model, Chinese universities can reimagine student residential areas not merely as places to live, but as vital educational spaces that contribute to the formation of well-rounded, engaged, and self-directed graduates.