The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2 - 82

Kevin R. McClure * James M. DeVita * Andrew J. Ryder

University of the Foggy Mountains
Institutional context.	 The University of the
Foggy Mountains (UFM) is a public researchextensive university located in the Southeast
region of the United States. It is located in the
urban center of a city of approximately 200,000
residents, which surrounds the campus and
blurs the distinctions between campus and
community space. The university's status
as the flagship institution provides a vibrant
academic and social climate on campus, particularly Greek life and athletics. Proximity to
community resources (e.g., shopping, restaurants) makes campus accessible to students
and community members. With the exception
of a natural barrier to the south of campus,
UFM is encircled by residential communities
that include student housing options.
UFM suffered from limited state support
that contributed to a 40-year gap between
developments of new housing facilities on
campus, in addition to many outdated buildings across campus. The lack of adequate
services for students (e.g., air conditioning) as
well as desired amenities (e.g., private bathrooms and study spaces) contributed to the development of a "one-and-done" culture where
students lived on campus only during the requisite first year. The outdated facilities, limited
amenities, and culture of moving off-campus
after the first year created an ideal environment
for off-campus competitors to emerge. In addition to providing amenities that the university
could not (e.g., free TVs, hot tubs, and tanning
beds), some private off-campus options are
located closer to campus than some new and
existing on-campus housing options. Private
companies also began marketing to first-year
students as early as November and provided
82

open contract options that UFM could not -
until a revised housing selection process was
implemented two years ago. Although this
adjustment was helpful for returning students, administrators acknowledged that they
were well below full capacity and were "hemorrhaging" upperclassmen. One reason was
the long overdue needs for new and improved
facilities, which were under way at the time
of interviews. One senior administrator commented: "Facilities-wise, they needed a lot of
work. There was a lot of patchwork that I had
observed, there was a lot of deferred maintenance. ....The staff did the best they could, but
we really needed new facilities."
Despite a need for new buildings with
modern amenities that could compete with
an evolving private market and increasingly
competitive market for students from regional
state institutions, UFM decided not to engage
in a PPP for future construction. The university's decision was shaped by three factors:
(a) the campus culture at UFM, (b) a recently
failed PPP, and (c) the rebranding of campus
housing as a significant contributor to student
learning and development. Administrators at
UFM have implemented initiatives (e.g., open
housing selection process, marketing plan) to
realign housing's brand identity with the institution's mission and address service gaps
private competitors cannot match. The failed
PPP resulted in the purchase of an off-campus
residential hall from a private developer, for
which housing remains obligated to finance
and manage. This negative experience, as well
as stories of negative PPPs at other institutions,
contributed to UFM's commitment to develop
new facilities through more traditional means.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2
