Contemporary Issues In Education Research – October 2010 Volume 3, Number 10

Student Housing:
Trends, Preferences And Needs
Claire Reeves La Roche, Longwood University, USA
Mary A. Flanigan, Longwood University, USA
P. Kenneth Copeland, Jr., Longwood University, USA

ABSTRACT

To attract and retain students, universities are confronted with increased demand to provide
housing options that meet the new expectations of the millennial generation. Recent trends and
housing preferences are examined. The results of surveys detailing some of these new demands
and how universities are attempting to address these demands are discussed. Additionally,
universities are under pressure to efficiently use their limited resources and, as government
support for higher education declines, public universities are seeking other sources of funding for
major projects. Suggestions are made for unique partnering and financing options.

Keywords: Student housing, dormitory, housing preferences

INTRODUCTION

U nlike their “baby-boomer” parents who were used to sharing a bedroom and bathroom, the students of
the millennial generation have higher expectations for their student housing. The traditional dormitory
with hall bathrooms and gang showers are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Private firms are
competing with on-campus housing and tapping into the lucrative student housing market. Many privately-owned
student housing developers are offering attractive, secure housing options that provide opportunities for students to
socialize.

With the average high school senior applying to twenty or more colleges (CollegeBoard), housing is a
tangible marketing tool as well as a way for a university to differentiate itself. The Center for Facilities Research of
the APPA conducted a study of nearly 14,000 students. The purpose of the study was to determine “the relative
importance of an institution’s physical assets on a student’s choice of higher education institutions” and “the relative
importance of various facilities in the decision process….” (Cain) The study found that “two-thirds of the
respondents indicated the Overall Quality of the Campus Facilities and that half of the respondents indicated the
Attractiveness of the Campus were “Essential “or “Very Important” to their decision.” (Cain) To determine which
facilities were most important to see on a campus visit, respondents were asked to rank facilities. “Residence Halls
on Campus” were ranked second with 53.1 percent feeling they were important to see on a campus visit. Ranked
first were facilities related to the major course of study. Respondents were asked to pick the one facility that “had
the greatest impact on their decision” in selecting a college. Ranked third, with 11.5%, was residential space. Poorly
maintained or inadequate facilities were listed as the number one reason for rejecting an institution. (Cain)

The current economic crisis is being felt by both state supported and private colleges and universities.
While tuition and fees are increasing faster than inflation (4.9% greater than inflation from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010
for four- year public institutions) many states are limiting the amount of increased costs that may be recouped
through tuition increases. (CollegeBoard) To meet the financial challenges as well as student expectations,
institutions are looking for alternatives for financing housing projects. (CollegeBoard) A more immediate problem
facing institutions is the expected increase in college enrollments and the ability of schools to meet that demand.

This paper describes the national trends in student housing and the results of surveys of student
preferences both nationally and at one university. The paper concludes with a discussion of the problems and

45
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – October 2010 Volume 3, Number 10

opportunities for financing student residential developments.

HOUSING PREFERENCES OF THE MILLENNIAL STUDENT

University Business identified six trends in campus housing: Luxury, Privacy, Privatization, Live and
Learn, Safety and Security, and Go Green. (Angelo) While these trends address all aspects of student housing, “The
needs and desires of students and their families have changed over the past ten years, more so than in any other
period I have seen” said Connie Carson, president of the Association of College and University Housing Officers-
International. (Dessoff) Carson continues to say “There is a lot more interest in housing with more amenities than
the basic ones that historically have been provided on campuses. Suite style and apartment housing has become the
trend.” (Dessoff) What were once considered to be luxuries in student housing – kitchens, private bedrooms, private
bathrooms, social spaces and lounges – are now expected. (School Facilities) Internet connectivity – including
wireless connections and cable are considered requirements. Cognizant of the world in which they live, students also
demand a safe and secure environment.

Expectations of students also include increased connectivity for the “toys” that are now an essential part of
their lifestyle – cell phones and IPods, games, MP3 devices, computers, printers and other essentials for the modern
teenager. Laundry facilities, HVAC that can be controlled in each room, fitness facilities and common spaces to
socialize and/or study are expected amenities. Essentially, the new student wants “…things in their own spaces.
And they are used to leading busy academic, extracurricular, cyber, and social lives.” (Miller)

HOUSING PREFERENCES OF THE LONGWOOD STUDENT

In an effort to determine the housing preferences of the Longwood student, 325 undergraduate students
were surveyed. The results indicate that students overwhelmingly reject the traditional dormitory as a housing
option indicating their expectations of privacy and state-of-the-art amenities.

Longwood University is a state supported school that requires students to live in campus housing until their
third year. Of the 325 students surveyed in the April 2010 Student Housing Preference Survey, 10.5% were
freshmen, 22.8% were sophomores, 29.5% were juniors, and 37.2% were seniors. Sixty-three percent of the
respondents were female and 37% were male. This does not represent the gender distribution of the university
population and may be a function of the classes that were surveyed. However, when the results were analyzed using
gender as a discriminant, the results were remarkably similar. Thus, it appears that gender is not a factor in housing
preferences. The break-down by type of housing currently occupied is shown on Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Percent of Survey Respondents in Current Housing

Other
13%

Dorm
27%

Apt.
33%

Mixed Use
27%

Of the survey respondents, 27.1% indicated that they share a bedroom and live in a traditional dormitory
and share a bathroom and when asked about next year, only 17.3% said that they were going to live in a traditional
46
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – October 2010 Volume 3, Number 10

dormitory. When asked about their preferred form of housing, only 3.2% said that they preferred traditional
dormitory living. The first choice for university-owned student housing was mixed-use apartment-style housing
with shops and restaurants on the ground floor located within walking distance of the university. The housing
preferences of those surveyed is illustrated by Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. First Choice Housing Preferences

Commuter Dorm
1% 2%
Other Off Campus Mixed Use
36% 29%

Private Apt Univ. Apt.

11% 21%

It is interesting to note that 11.1% of the respondents preferred to live in a privately owned and operated
apartment complex that is designed for students and featured private bedrooms and baths and 36.3% of the
respondents preferred other off-campus housing. Thus, including the commuter students, almost half (48.6%) of the
students would rather live off-campus. This preference is important to note for several reasons. As colleges and
universities utilize real estate foundation boards to build student housing, there are fewer restrictions if the housing
is not built on state property. Given the current economic climate and the desire to provide affordable education
options, there is a trend at the state level to prohibit state schools from requiring students to live on-campus, a move
that would require universities to compete on the basis of both cost and amenities.

The Student Housing Survey revealed the important role that cost plays in the housing decision. Figure 3
below illustrates that for one in four (24.8%) of those surveyed, cost either had a large impact or was a deciding
factor and for an additional one-third (33.9%) of the respondents, cost was somewhat of a factor.

Figure 3. Role of Cost in Choosing Housing

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Not at All Slightly Somewhat Large Impact Deciding Factor

Of those surveyed, almost half (47%) believed that it is more expensive to live on campus than it is to live
off-campus. Approximately half (50.8%) of the survey respondents said that they make their own housing
decisions; 28% of the housing decisions are made in equal consultation with a student’s parents, 9.2% of the
decisions are made exclusively by the parents and in 10.5 % of the cases, the housing decision is made by a third

47
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – October 2010 Volume 3, Number 10

party. With 78.8% of the students having a significant role in choosing student housing, what amenities do
millennial students prefer? An overwhelming majority (87.5%) of students would rather have a double bed. In
addition, a majority of students are willing to pay an additional fee to have a private room, a private bath, access to a
kitchen and on-site parking.

Figure 4. Preferred Amenities

100
90
80
70
60
50
40 Yes
30 No
20
Don't Care
10
0

When asked to rank the most important consideration in choosing housing, “security” was ranked first,
followed by proximity to campus and cost. For a majority of respondents, a “deal breaker” in the housing decision
included: no Internet access (92.9%), no laundry facilities on premises (84.9%), no cable TV (75.7%) and no kitchen
(57.4%). For approximately half of the respondents, sharing a bedroom was a “deal breaker” (49.3%) as were twin
beds (42.1%). Surprisingly, sharing a bathroom was only a deal breaker for 11.7%

OTHER TRENDS IN STUDENT HOUSING

Another trend identified by University Business is the concept of Live and Learn spaces where students’ in-
and-out of classroom academic experiences is integrated. (Angelo) Universities across the US are attempting to
foster a collegial environment by blurring the lines between academic and non-academic pursuits. In particular,
many universities are offering themed housing such as a “Spanish House” where residents live and may eat while
practicing their conversational Spanish. Additionally, many universities are fostering a collegial environment by
creating “residential colleges” that house both students and faculty. Although there is not a standard model, in many
residential colleges, some classes may be taught onsite and some of the meals are taken together.

FINANCING HOUSING

Today’s students expect to have the amenities of home while away at school. Living in a traditional
campus residence hall, laid out in suites with shared bathrooms and two students per room is rapidly becoming a
thing of the past. Offering an apartment style option, typically for upperclassmen, is becoming more and more
prevalent. “Off campus housing trends have become more upscale, as students now look for amenities typically
associated with apartment living that rarely exist in dorm environments.” (Marcus & Millichap) In order to stay
competitive, colleges and universities are now faced with the issue of diversifying their housing options.

48
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – October 2010 Volume 3, Number 10

A more immediate problem facing institutions is the expected increase in college enrollments and the
ability of schools to meet that demand. Enrollments are on an upward trajectory and are expected to remain so for
the next four years. Total enrollment is expected to increase 8% from 2009 to 2012. (IPM Amicus) “Due to high
construction costs, most universities have been unable to keep up with mounting housing demand. Developers have
responded with the delivery of more than 57,000 beds since 2000, while an additional 23,000 beds are forecast to
come online by the end of 2009.” (Marcus & Millichap) Virginia has two of the ten fastest growing universities in
the country: George Mason and Virginia Commonwealth. Consequently, the topic of providing beds is one of
immediate concern in this state. (Marcus & Millichap)

In Virginia, public educational institutions have used the traditional 9C and 9D bond programs and
financed student housing construction and/or renovation through the Commonwealth Bond Issuance program. This
program is generally reserved for building 50 to 100 year structures and the typical apartment-style student housing
will not meet the criteria for the state’s bond financing programs.

As a result of the dilemma created by student demand for apartment-style housing, many state-supported
colleges and universities have created a separate legal entity, a real estate foundation, to assist in the construction
and financing of student housing projects. University affiliated foundations have greater flexibility in the
construction that may be used, particularly when building in close proximity, but not actually on, Commonwealth
property. As a rule, building a 30-year structure under the supervision of a local building official is less expensive
than a traditional state building – and considerably less time consuming. Additionally, trends over the past 10 to 15
years suggest that building residential space with longer than a 30-year life isn’t prudent due to the rapid technical
innovations, cultural changes and expectations of students.

With a support pledge from the college or university, the affiliated real estate foundation can pursue
financing through tax exempt revenue bonds, using a local government Industrial Development Authority (IDA).
For instance, in Virginia, the state small business financing authority may act as the issuer and a bank as a re-
marketing agent. Credit enhancement for these bonds typically comes either in the form of a bank- issued letter of
credit or bond insurance. Although most small schools do not typically pursue this option, a college or university
may have its own individual bond rating that enables either the school or its affiliated foundation the opportunity of
doing a bond issue without the benefit of credit enhancement. With the recent volatility in domestic and
international financial markets, bond insurance is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Currently, there are
only two viable options remaining in the marketplace for providing bond insurance and if conditions worsen over
the next 24 to 36 months, these companies may be forced to totally abandon the bond insurance business.

As access to credit enhancement becomes more challenging, construction contractors have begun to look at
the traditional design/build or design/bid/build structures through a new lens. Many larger contractors have
developed strategic alliances with large investment banking operations thus enabling them to solicit construction
business by offering a turnkey solution – i.e. the contractor delivers a completed project to the customer that could
either be financed in a traditional principal and interest mortgage note or ground leased by the contractor, developed
and master leased back to the college or university. At the end of the master lease term, the property would revert
back to the university. This approach allows the developer to depreciate the structure(s) and take advantage of any
tax credit opportunities that may exist in the marketplace. Neither a state supported school nor its affiliated
foundation would receive any benefit from depreciation or tax credits. A “for-profit” construction firm on the other
hand, could theoretically derive significant tax benefits – thereby enabling them to put a financially attractive lease
option in the hands of the lessee. This type of non-traditional financing will likely become much more
commonplace as the country digs its way out of the current economic situation.

CONCLUSION

Millennial students have significantly higher expectations for student housing than their parents did and are
willing to pay an additional fee for certain amenities. As colleges and universities plan to take older dorms off-line
and build additional housing, it is important to examine housing options preferred by students. Given the current
economic situation, universities may find it expedient to join forces with their prior competitors, private developers,
and share in the lucrative revenue stream provided by student housing. Given the trend of providing social
49
Contemporary Issues In Education Research – October 2010 Volume 3, Number 10

amenities to students, the authors were surprised to find that students are somewhat ambivalent about residential
colleges and themed housing with a minority of students open to the idea of living in one of these unique
communities.

While security and cost are important considerations, the Student Housing Survey revealed the following
“Top Ten” amenities that are either “very important” or “somewhat important” to students:

1. Private bedroom (95.5%)

2. Onsite parking (92%)
3. Double beds (91.3%)
4. Onsite laundry facilities (90.3%)
5. Internet access (88.8%)
6. Proximity to campus (73.3%)
7. Fitness Center (73.3%)
8. Private bathroom (73%)
9. Cable TV (56.4%)
10. Satellite Dining (50%)

The expectations of amenities that should be included in student housing are increasing at a time when state
funding is decreasing. Restrictions on the types of housing that a bond issue may be used to build may prohibit an
institution from building apartment-style housing that is overwhelmingly preferred by today’s students. It is
recommended that state supported colleges and universities form a separate entity, a real estate foundation, to be free
of many of the state’s building restrictions and to avail themselves of alternative forms of financing.

REFERENCES

1. Angelo, Jean Marie and Nicole Rivard. “If you build it they will come: 6 trends to build by, from campus
innovators in higher ed housing – Special Report: Campus Housing”. University Business
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOLSH/is_5_6/ai_102090783/pg_5/?tag=content;col1. Accessed
3/15/2010.
2. Cain, David and Gary Reynolds. “The Impact of Facilities on Recruitment and Retention of Students. Part
I.” Facilities Manager Magazine. Vol. 22, March –April, 2006.
3. Desoff, Alan. “Campus Auxiliary Facilities; Universities Stress to Accommodate Student Desires and
Future Trends.” May-June 2007. Pp 20-23.
4. “Economic Challenges Lead to Lower Non-tuition Revenues and Higher Prices at Colleges and
Universities.” College Board 2010. Http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/208962.html
5. Hill, Christopher. “Housing Trends of the 21st Century: Addressing Today’s Student Expectations.” AIA
Convention Address, Boston, May 15, 2008.
6. Marcus and Millichap. Special Report: Student Housing Making the Grade with Investors. 2009.
www.MarcusMillichap.com. Accessed 5/15/2010.
7. Miller, Herman. “Room and Board Redefined” HermanMiller.com. accessed 3/24/2010.
8. “New Trends in Student Housing.”
Http://schoolfacilities.com/_coreModules/content/contentDisplau_print.aspx?content...5/16/2010.
9. “The Expert: Student Housing Outlook Remains Healthy.” IPM Amicus. Institutional Project Management.
http://www.ipm-amicus.com/about/press/expert-student-housing-outlook-remains-healthy. accessed
3/15/2010/

50