The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 90

Cynthia P. Balogh • Kasey Price • James Day • Rita Moser

close enough to campuses to allow for a reasonable commute to classes. Additionally, with individual-lease apartment options and the ability of some private companies to offer lower rental rates to students, colleges and universities increasingly find themselves competing with the off-campus rental market. For institutions that do not have a mandatory on-campus living requirement, finding ways to keep students interested in living in residence halls is challenging, leaving them little choice but to upgrade facilities originally built to reflect the needs and interests of students from earlier decades. Finally, the trend for increasing sustainability in both new construction and renovation of existing residential facilities continues.

to separate the specific costs for living facilities and, therefore, some costs may include space used for other functions. Several attempts to contact the CHOs for correct information did, however, allow for a more complete analysis of the overall data. The information provided is meant to offer an overview of the average costs and preferences for housing construction and renovation. Even with these limitations, chief housing officers are able to come away with a general sense of the projects at other colleges and universities of similar size and scope to their own, and this knowledge can be used to inform future planning decisions.

LIMITATIONS
There were several limitations to the study that may affect the information reported. Invitations to participate in the study were sent via e-mail to chief housing officers whose institutions were members of ACUHO-I at the time of the survey administration. Some institutions did not have updated information listed with the ACUHO-I central office, which thus limited the pool of participants. Additionally, not every institution completed all applicable sections or questions of the survey. For instance, respondents who provided project costs for a particular endeavor may not have supplied similar information for construction costs, thereby making comparisons between the two difficult. In some instances, the number of beds or gross square footage was omitted. Though every attempt was made to include only residence hall data, some projects may have included dining halls or recreation facilities. It may not have been possible

SUMMARY
The implications of this data are varied particularly due to the numerous types of information collected. Project-level details are available at http://StudentHousing.MGTofAmerica.com (click on ACUHO-I 2008 Presentation). CHOs are encouraged to identify similar projects and to contact their peers for additional information of interest. With each iteration of the survey, the questions and data collection methods improve and become even more valuable to those involved in campus planning. The next administration of the survey, which began in January 2010, covers the span of projects completed from the beginning of the Winter 2008 term through the Fall 2009 term. In order to make completion of the survey easier, as construction and renovation projects are planned and completed, chief housing officers are encouraged to maintain a file on project and construction costs, gross square footage, and number of beds included.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITy STUDENT HOUSING

http://StudentHousing.MGTofAmerica.com

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2