STUDENT ACCOMMODATION 087
home. Te 1961 Census showed that in many rural areas, particularly Wales and Norfolk, more than half the population didn’t even have an indoor loo, and nearly half a million people in London and the big cities still lived in slums and tenements with multiple families sharing toilets.
Along with changes in expectation, changes in funding have also altered the landscape in the UK. From 1962 to the early ’90s, university was more or less free, with tuition fees paid and generous grants to cover
accommodation – so if the halls of residence were a bit basic, they were at least free and everyone was in the same situation. Now, according to pressure group Save the Student, the average maintenance loan is just £470 a month, while the average student pays £641 per month in rent – creating both an incentive to shop around for value and a free market economy where students from more affluent homes can enjoy greater luxury. Student Luxe, for example, offers serviced, hotel-style facilities in prime locations for well-heeled
students from £580 up to an eye-watering £3,800 a week.
Universities now function as businesses, and are reliant on attracting customers – especially lucrative overseas students. As many of those choosing to study in the UK from abroad come from wealthy families, expectations are high, fuelling the race to the top in terms of accommodation quality. Alex Lifschutz of LDS has seen it in action at Imperial College London, which had 61% overseas students in 2020–21: ‘Tey had permission to knock down a 1970s building because they couldn’t get students to accept they had to share loos. Students have changed and they aren’t prepared to share, so Imperial rebuilt the block all with en suites. It’s also more practical to use as conference accommodation in the summer.’ LDS’s latest student project, One Pool Street, is part of UCL’s new East Campus, and provides both homes and educational facilities for more than 500 students close to the Olympic Park, in a rare example of university- owned new accommodation. However, few educational institutions have the money to build the quality of accommodation that brings in students – so a variety of models involving the private sector have developed. Some institutions are entering into DBFO (design, build, finance, operate) agreements on campus, such as the University of York’s partnership with Civitas to provide 1,400 new student beds or University of Exeter’s arrangement with UPP to demolish 30 existing buildings and create 1,700 new beds at its West Park Campus.
Elsewhere, off-campus, stand-alone privately operated buildings, such as Te Piano Works in Hackney designed by Henley Halebrown for Southern Grove, Te Cam Foundry in Cambridge designed by TP Bennett for Aparto and various developments from Nido Student, welcome residents from multiple universities. In fact, universities now wholly own and run just 41% of student rooms according to 2021 research by real estate services company Cushman & Wakefield, and the trend is downwards.
While private sector investment has enabled universities to expand and provide better quality homes for increasing numbers of young people, some argue that hard-up students are now bank-rolling big business and overseas investors. A report by Knight Frank about the UK PBSA market revealed that in 2021, investment from Asia in UK student property was in excess of £400m – for example, Singapore-based Q Investment Partners operates a £150m portfolio of around 1,000 student bedrooms in Edinburgh, Nottingham, Sheffield and London and has recently snapped up a new development in Leeds. Cushman & Wakefield’s UK Student Accommodation report values the UK PBSA market in excess of £60bn, with yields of up to 8%, so investors’ interest is hardly surprising. Better accommodation has to be a good thing (even students can do without rising damp and rodents), but there are questions to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141
