Page 10 - College Planning & Management, April/May 2019

10 CAMPUS HOUSING
housed on campus than current capacity allows. This often translates to needing new facilities or potentially deep renovations to make existing facilities acceptable to sophomore’s and their unique needs.”
Again this year, CP&M asked respondents who are developing, building, and funding new residence halls if their institution had entered into a public-private partnership (P3) with a developer or other entity in order to build and/ or maintain these new residential facilities.
In 2018, 23 percent indicated they have done so; 77 percent have not. This year, 82 percent respondents said they have not entered into a P3 in order to add or maintain housing; 18 percent indicated that they have. Is Gatewood seeing this trend as well?
“Quite the opposite,” he says. “We are seeing just as many, if not more, projects coming out as P3, and especially large projects. Institutions are turning to P3 for myriad reasons. As many institutions find themselves with limited state funding, significant enrollment growth, large amounts of deferred maintenance, or other financial constraints, P3 can be an attractive delivery model.”
MAINTAINING WHAT’S IN PLACE
For those institutions not building new facilities from the ground up, deferred main- tenance, along with routine maintenance, renovations, and upgrades are keeping housing administrators increasingly concerned. In 2018, one-quarter of survey respondents indicated that they had renovations in progress, while 11 percent had renovations on hold due to budget constraints. Forty-two percent of respondents had no major renovations planned.
In 2019, the percentage who responded that they currently have renovations underway or beginning soon is just over a third, at 34 percent. The number with projects on hold due to budget constraints increased to 20 percent,
while 37 percent have no major renovations/ upgrades planned.
Table 1 indicates the types of renovations
or upgrades that are underway or planned for the next three to five years. Up slightly from last year’s 90 percent, 96 percent of respondents indicate that general maintenance, painting, and repair are on the agenda. Seventy percent of respondents say carpeting and flooring replace- ments are necessary or in the works—the same as in 2018—and 69 percent are planning or are undertaking furniture and fixtures replacement (down from 75 percent last year). The general consensus is that students are hard on housing; keeping up appearances with general/routine maintenance of walls, floors, furniture, and fix- tures is a vital minimum to keep residence hall spaces safe, functional, and appealing to new and returning occupants.
WHAT’S IN A RESIDENCE HALL? WHAT SHOULD BE?
Our survey respondents consistently indicate that students, and their parents, expect residen- tial facilities to provide all the basic comforts and amenities of home... or better than home. What those amenities are can vary; there is no “one size fits all” residence hall. There are, however, com- mon and/or popular amenities that are routinely included or desired across the board.
In 2018, 88 percent of respondents indi- cated that their residence hall spaces included central laundry facilities. This year, that number increased to 92 percent. In 2018, 35 percent indicated the existence of full-service central kitchens; this year the number is very similar,
at 36 percent. In the spirit of students wanting their own version of amenities, in 2017, survey respondents indicated that 45 percent of resi- dence hall spaces do or will include kitchens in rooms or suites. In 2019, that number increased slightly to 48 percent.
In 2018 and again in 2019, 33 percent of
Table 1
General Maintenance Mechanical/Electrical System Technology/Networking Upgrades Furniture and Fixtures
Carpeting and Flooring Security and Life-Safety
0% 10% 20%
30% 40%
50% 60%
70% 80%
90% 100%
WEBCPM.COM / APRIL/MAY 2019