Page 17 - College Planning & Management, April 2017

respondents (53 percent) indicated that aging facilities would have a profound impact. The next frequently mentioned item on the list of profound impact issues was deferred maintenance (35 percent
of respondents), followed closely by lack
of adequate funds (34 percent). Housing programs that are walking a narrow line between keeping their current building stock functional, comfortable and safe and student expectations for something akin to the good life on campus are probably not ready to offer students high-end amenities.
With that observation made, what do our survey respondents have to say about the state of their campus housing stock, as well as the students living within it?
Space. Too Much?
Too Little? Just Enough?
Depending on where you look for statistics, the number of students enroll-
ing in colleges or universities is increasing, decreasing or remaining about the same. The growth of online learning, although slowing somewhat, is allowing students — both traditional and nontraditional — to learn from where they currently live, with no need to travel to or reside on a college or uni- versity campus. Regardless of those trends, campus housing remains a marketing tool for institutions looking to draw students to and keep them on campus. Schools need
to offer sufficient beds and accompanying
amenities. Too much real estate tied up in residence halls that are under-occupied is
a drain on budgets and resources, but not having sufficient space for potential and current students might cause those students to move along to an institution that can meet their desires as well as their needs. Are there sufficient beds available today?
When CP&M surveyed housing adminis- trators last year, 54 percent of respondents in- dicated they have sufficient space, 38 percent indicated too little and 8 percent indicated they have too much, resulting in unfilled beds. This year, the number of respondents indicating they have sufficient space has risen to 60 percent; 32 percent indicated they have too little (a 6 percent drop) and again, only 8 percent say they have too much.
Up 8 percent from last year, 88 percent said they are not planning to add any new residence halls to campus in 2017-2018; 12 percent said they are. Of those 12 percent adding to their stock, 63 percent are doing so to increase the number of beds available. Thirty-eight percent are replacing existing facilities. And over one-third of them (38 percent) intend for these new facilities to improve their school’s marketability/help with recruiting new students, and also to keep current students living on campus. Perhaps aligned with this goal, 13 percent are building these facilities to create spe- cialized living/learning communities (for first-generation students, or family housing
space, to cluster students who are enrolled in similar programs together, etc.).
Jordan Gatewood, AIA, LEED-BD+C, senior associate for Mackey Mitchell Architects in St. Louis, sees this trend in creating a sense of community, as well as a concern for all-around health and wellness, for residential students.
“Institutions are increasingly interested in building spaces which promote living learning community,” he says. “Writable surfaces are everywhere as are tech-enabled rooms for small group study. Institutions are all looking at the issue of health and wellness which translates in different ways on individ- ual campuses. Offices for counselors, small fitness rooms (typically cardio equipment), meditation rooms, community kitchens where dietitians can interact with students are all examples of spaces we are designing to promote wellness in residence halls.”
CP&M did not ask a question this year concerning who is developing, building, and funding new residence halls — the school itself, a private developer or a public-private (P3) partnership. For most, funding new residence halls is a prime concern, however, with one survey respondent observing that the issue of most concern is that “developer P3 construction projects are necessitated.”
Gatewood sees that as well.
“P3 delivery is gaining more traction
as an option for institutions that may otherwise not be able to afford to build new
17
HOUSING SURVEY COLLEGE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT 4 2017
WEBCPM.COM