Travis Vencel, principal at Trinitas and former member of the City of Bloomington Plan Commission gave a presentation on trends in student housing at the 2012 Inter-City Visit to Bloomington, IN.

1. National Trends in Student Housing
Inter-City Visit to
Bloomington, Indiana
September 10, 2012

2. Off Campus Housing
National Demands
Using data from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S.
Census Bureau between 2000 and 2010 (the last decade) there
was a 38.7 percent increase in enrollment in public universities
which led to a 21.4 percent growth in the number of students
living off campus.
Only five states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland and Utah)
have been able to provide enough additional dorm beds to
maintain dorm residency levels against growing enrollments.
Student Housing Business, 2012

3. Competitive Markets
Population
2010: 76,500 80,500 92,000 143,000 295,800
2030: 100,000 108,200 110,000 207,800 351,800
Percentage
of renters
2010: 55% 65% 77%* 43% 45%
Most frequent
mode of
transportation
after the
automobile Walk Walk Walk Bicycle Walk

4. Competitive Markets
Community
Population: 76,500 80,500 92,000 143,000 295,800
Growth Rate: 17% 10% 9.4% 21% 13%
(last 10 years)
University
Enrollment: 29,000 42,500 45,000 30,000 27,000
Growth rate: 19% 14.5% 10% 29.5% 13%
(last 10 years)
Student population
as percentage
2010: 38% 53% 49% 21% 9%
1970: 50% 69% 49% 39% 10%
Beds: 8,900 15,651 17,000 8,700 6,434
% of students: 30% 37% 38% 29% 24%

5. Off Campus Housing
Demand for off campus
Using the 21.4% number that creates the following demands on off campus
markets that compare with Chapel Hill and Bloomington campuses.
Chapel Hill, UNC – 21.4% = 4,000 students
Bloomington – IU - 21.4% = 6,000 students
State College – PSU 21.4% = 6,000 students
Fort Collins – CSU – 21.4% = 4,500 students
Lexington – UK – 21.4% = 4,000 students

6. Off Campus Housing
Demand for off campus
Using the 21.4% number that creates the following demands on off campus
markets that compare with Chapel Hill and Bloomington campuses.
Chapel Hill, UNC – 21.4% = 4,000 students 2,228
Bloomington – IU - 21.4% = 6,000 students 6,385
State College – PSU 21.4% = 6,000 students
Fort Collins – CSU – 21.4% = 4,500 students
Lexington – UK – 21.4% = 4,000 students

7. Competitive Markets
Chapel Hill, NC
University enrollment 29,000
University growth rate 2000-2010 19%
Enrollment increase since 2000 4,100
Housing: Halls/Dorms 36
Beds (including Greek) 8,900
% of student body 30%
Increase since 2000 1,872
Off campus demand 20,100
Off campus demand increase since 2000 2,228

8. Competitive Markets
Chapel Hill, NC
University enrollment 29,000
University growth rate 2000-2010 19%
Enrollment increase since 2000 4,100
Housing: Halls/Dorms 36
Beds (including Greek) 8,900
% of student body 30%
Increase since 2000 1,872
Off campus demand 20,100
Off campus demand increase since 2000 2,228

9. Competitive Markets
Bloomington, IN
University enrollment 42,500
University growth rate 2000-2010 14.5%
Enrollment increase since 2000 5,424
Housing: Halls/Dorms 21
Beds (including Greek) 15,651
% of student body 37%
Increase since 2000 -961
Off campus demand 26,849
Off campus demand increase since 2000 6,385

10. Competitive Markets
Bloomington, IN
University enrollment 42,500
University growth rate 2000-2010 14.5%
Enrollment increase since 2000 5,424
Housing: Halls/Dorms 21
Beds (including Greek) 15,651
% of student body 37%
Increase since 2000 -961
Off campus demand 26,849
Off campus demand increase since 2000 6,385

11. Competitive Markets
Enrollment and Population
190,000
180,000
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
Enrollment / Population
120,000
110,000
100,000 Monroe County Population
90,000
IU Enrollment
80,000
70,000 Tippecanoe County Population
60,000 Purdue Enrollment
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year

12. Competitive Markets
Enrollment and Population
190,000
180,000
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
Enrollment / Population
120,000
110,000
100,000 Monroe County Population
90,000
IU Enrollment
80,000
70,000 Tippecanoe County Population
60,000 Purdue Enrollment
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year

13. Competitive Markets
Enrollment and Population
190,000
180,000
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
Enrollment / Population
120,000
110,000
100,000 Monroe County Population
90,000
IU Enrollment
80,000
70,000 Tippecanoe County Population
60,000 Purdue Enrollment
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year

14. Competitive Markets
Enrollment and Population
190,000
180,000
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
Enrollment / Population
120,000
110,000
100,000 Monroe County Population
90,000
IU Enrollment
80,000
70,000 Tippecanoe County Population
60,000 Purdue Enrollment
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year

15. Off Campus Housing
National Trend to By Design
As a result of the additional pressure for off campus housing for
students we have seen pressure put on our core neighborhoods
surrounding campuses nationwide.
The result has been By Default Student Housing.

16. By Default Student Housing

17. By Default Student Housing

18. By Default Student Housing

19. By Default Student Housing

20. By Default Student Housing

21. By Default Student Housing

22. By Default Student Housing

23. By Default Student Housing

24. By Default Student Housing

25. By Default Student Housing

26. By Default Student Housing

27. Off Campus Housing
By Default Student Housing
•More than one person per bedroom
•Often only 1 bathroom per unit
•Inadequate parking facilities
•Lack of private and public spaces (Porches, rear yards, etc).
•Access/Safety issues (ingress-egress)
•Close to campus and other amenities
•Adjacent to owner occupied properties
•Absent or not on site management

28. Student Housing
National Trends

29. Off Campus Housing
National Trends
By Design Student Housing started in the 1990’s, when
investors saw an opportunity to provide specialized housing for
University Students.
2 and 4 bedrooms typically with 2 bathrooms
Large living spaces (kitchens and living rooms)
Amenities, pools and clubhouses
Larger complexes on multi-family land far from campus

30. By Design Student Housing
What is it today?
•Residential product designed for a University
related population that reflects the social
trends of today’s University communities.
•Residential product designed for the 18-26
year old, (born 1986-1994).

31. By Design Student Housing
What is it today?
University student population likes to live together.
Dorms have been on campus for years.
Large homes and Fraternities/Sororities.
Freshman required to live on campus.
Universities strive to create a community.
Universities can’t house all students.

32. By Design Student Housing
What is it today?
Social trends of today’s University population.
Socially conscious development.
Low impact on the environment.
Energy efficient design and construction.
Community activities – engaged management staff.
Sustainability – walkable, pedestrian friendly.
– recycling programs.
– access to public transportation.

33. By Design Student Housing
What is it today?
Residential product designed for the 18-26 year old.
Born between 1986-1994.
Grew up in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
Suburban homes with large living areas.
Private bedrooms and bathrooms.
Cell phones, cable television, high speed internet.
Country club and athletic club memberships.

34. By Design Student Housing
What is it today?
Design Residential product.
a. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 bedroom dwelling units.
b. Full kitchens and laundry facilities.
c. Fully furnished dwellings.
d. Large living areas.
e. Private bedrooms and bathrooms.
f. Cable television and high speed internet services.
g. Fitness center with athletic club quality.
h. Clubhouse – internet, gaming, TVs, Study Rooms, etc.
i. On site management staff that are engaged with residents.

35. Location is key to real estate
Location, Location, Location
In most university communities there are 2 options
Downtown – Expensive land
Downtown – Higher construction cost
Downtown – Near campus
Downtown – compact urban form
Suburban – Commute to campus
Suburban – Low density
Suburban – Higher infrastructure/services cost
Suburban – Less expensive land

36. Off Campus Housing
National Trends
Urban Products:
•Mid rises 25-50 units/ac 75-150 beds/ac
Parking for 25-75% of beds
•High rises 35-100 units/ac 100-300 beds/ac
Parking for 25-50% of beds
Suburban Products:
•Townhomes & Flats 12-20 units/ac 36-60 beds/ac
Parking for 100-110% of beds
•Cottages 10-12 units/ac 40-60 beds/ac
Parking for 100-110% of beds

37. Off Campus Housing
National Trends
Products:
Examples

38. By Design Student Housing
Bloomington, IN
223 Units
690 Beds
2,3,4 Bedrooms
65% Parked
(35% on site)

39. By Design Student Housing
Madison, WI
264 Units
476 Beds
1,2,3,4 Bedrooms
20% Parked

40. By Design Student Housing
Raleigh, NC
149 Units
550 Beds
2,3,4,5 Bedrooms
100% Parked

41. By Design Student Housing
West Lafayette, IN
193 Units
731 Beds
2,3,4,5 Bedrooms
100% Parked

42. By Design Student Housing
West Lafayette, IN
193 Units
731 Beds
2,3,4,5 Bedrooms
100% Parked

43. By Design Student Housing
Indianapolis, IN
261 Units
675 Beds
1,2,3,4 Bedrooms
63% Parked

44. By Design Student Housing
Indianapolis, IN
261 Units
675 Beds
1,2,3,4 Bedrooms
63% Parked

45. By Design Student Housing
Richmond, VA
270 Units
691 Beds
1,2,3,4 Bedrooms
73% Parked

46. By Design Student Housing
Richmond, VA
270 Units
691 Beds
1,2,3,4 Bedrooms
73% Parked

47. By Design Student Housing
Richmond, VA
270 Units
691 Beds
1,2,3,4 Bedrooms
73% Parked

48. By Design Student Housing
Madison, WI
359 Units
669 Beds
1,2 Bedrooms
25% Parked

49. By Design Student Housing

50. By Design Student Housing

51. By Design Student Housing

52. By Design Student Housing

53. By Design Student Housing

54. By Design Student Housing

55. By Design Student Housing

56. By Design Student Housing

57. By Design Student Housing

58. By Design Student Housing

59. By Design Student Housing

60. By Design Student Housing

61. By Design Student Housing

62. By Design Student Housing

63. By Design Student Housing

64. By Design Student Housing

65. Student Housing
Where do we go from here?

66. Future of off Campus Housing
•The pressure will continue.
Core neighborhoods
Older multi-family products
Development of new products
•Continued demand for quality product.
Bedroom bath pairs
Amenities, Amenities, Amenities
Full line of services included

67. Future of off Campus Housing
•What Can Communities Do?
•Understand the demand over the next 20 years.
•Understand the market product demand.
•Set goals and policies for accommodating demand.
•Through policies and ordinances
•Appropriately locate density
•Appropriately incentivize development
•Anticipate the need for services

68. Future of off Campus Housing
•Bloomington
•Growth Policy plans of 1999 and 2002
•Focused on preserving core neighborhoods
•Focused on compact urban form
•Focused on more residents in the downtown
•UDO- zoning ordinance:
•Density in the downtown
•Unrelated adults in core neighborhoods
•Mechanism for increased density
•Identified areas appropriate for growth

69. Future of off Campus Housing
•Bloomington
•Results
“1991 and 2002 plan helped to stop the trends of
student dominated neighborhoods” Tim
Mueller, Bloomington Planning Director 1977-1995.
“Higher density in the downtown, close to services”
Tom Micuda, Bloomington Planning Director
“Party Houses have decreased in neighborhoods”
Lisa Abbott Director of HAND

70. Thank You
Travis Vencel
tvencel@trinitas-ventures.com