University of Washington: Comprehensive Housing Master Plan by Hanbury

COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY June 2008

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

A Collaborative Effort The Comprehensive Housing Master Plan for the Department of Housing & Food Services (HFS) is the result of a collaborative effort led by the University’s Steering Committee, Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas + Company, and Anderson Strickler & Associates. The process included participation from a broad cross-section of campus groups including members of the administration, faculty, staff and students. The Plan incorporates ideas generated through on-site workshops, focus groups, student surveys, planning team meetings, presentations, and reviews. The entire planning team is grateful to all who have devoted their vision, time, ideas, and energy to the process of the planning and creation of this plan. STEERING COMMITTEE University of Washington Paul Brown – Director, HFS Rob Lubin – Assistant Director, Facilities Operations, HFS JR Fulton – Capital Planning and Sustainability Manager, HFS Chris Jaehne – Assistant Director for Residential Life, HFS Jean Lee – Facilities Design Manager, HFS Ann Gigli – Administrator for Planning and Purchasing, HFS ADVISORY COMMITTEE University of Washington Lee Copeland – University Architect Theresa Doherty – Assistant Vice President for Regional Affairs Jada Isherwood – Student Hal Ferris – Partner, Lorig Associates Chris Malins – Senior Associate Treasurer, Treasury Office Jeanette Henderson – Director of Real Estate, Real Estate Office Marilyn Cox – Assistant Vice Provost for Capital Planning, Planning and Budgeting Eric Smith – Director, Capital Projects Office CONSTITUENT GROUPS University of Washington HFS Financial Services; HFS Facilities/Maintenance; HFS Communications and Marketing; HFS Food Servce/Dining & Catering; HFS Information Technology; UW Engineering Services; UW Architect; UW Landscape Architect; HFS Student Life; HFS Assistant Directors Committee; UW Treasury; Residence Hall Student Association; HFS Conference Group MASTER PLANNING TEAM Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas + Company S. Michael Evans, FAIA Kenneth Hall, ASLA Wesley Page, AIA Cathy Lester, Project Coordinator Anderson Strickler, LLC Greg Strickler Ellen Ulf

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Table Of Contents A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN Planning Process Market Report

Summary Methodology

Current Housing Situation

Peer Institution Analysis Off-Campus Market Living Preferences Demand Analysis III

IDEAL HOUSING SYSTEM Ideal Residential Model Summary Aspirational Analysis Ideal Program Descriptions Prototypical Unit Plans

COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN Scope of Work Event Building Programs Alignment with Campus Master Plan

Land Use Implications West Campus Financial Plan V

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Existing Building Analysis / Renovation Options North Campus Land Use Site Density Tests

APPENDIX Focus Group Notes Peer Benchmark Data Off-Campus Market Data Survey Response Tabulations Survey Demographic Data Financial Model Autumn 2006 Enrollment

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN

The University of Washington has established a goal to provide quality housing for its freshman enrollment while creating a 4-year live-on campus culture. Attaining this goal will require a fundamental shift in how the University views itself in the local housing market. Heretofore, University policy has reflected the perspective that the majority of student housing needs would be met by the private off-campus market. Additionally, the University will need to make investments in the deferred maintenance issues of its current stock of mid-20th Century high-rise residence halls. Those structures will continue to be needed to serve first year students, and renovating them to align with an enhanced community model that embraces a Live, Learn, Link philosophy of student engagement is imperative. The Division of Housing & Food Services has embraced these issues and is committed to creating a level of excellence unmatched in the nation by transforming its program and facilities to meet the following goals: • Redefine the academic atmosphere and social environment associated with living on campus by developing strong and supportive student residential communities • Provide students with a memorable and life-shaping undergraduate experience • Enhance the physical environment of existing housing through renovation and the construction of new facilities, thereby reducing student rental pressures in adjacent neighborhoods • Develop a sense of community, belonging, and identity with residential groups and that reflect good stewardship and environmental sensibilities

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Executive Summary • Strengthen students’ connections to the University by creating exceptional indoor and outdoor spaces resulting in life-shaping and memorable experiences • Enhance collaboration with all aspects of the University in developing programs and services that reinforce student academic success and potential growth and development • Create spaces that improve student engagement with faculty and thus their potential for academic success strengthening their connections to the Institution • Serve the diversity of socio-economic groups comprising the undergraduate student body • Strengthen students’ connections to the University intentionally creating opportunities for donor support • Develop an analysis and recommendations regarding the potential demoliton of existing facilities that fail to support these goals or fail to make economic sense for renovation • Substantially increase the number of upper classmen who live on campus • Develop a residential capacity that will serve each entering freshman class • Develop student residential communities that support transition to college, first year academic success and sophomore retention in on-campus housing • Develop two-year residential living/learning programs In order to achieve these goals the following actions are proposed in the Comprehensive Housing Master Plan: • Development of a Student Village of 3,500 new residential beds on the West Campus that includes both residence halls and student apartments thereby eliminating triple occupancy rooms in existing conditions. • Demolition of Mercer Hall on the West Campus to maximize site density and new bed potential • Enhance the freshman housing on the North Campus and Lander Terry Hall on the West Campus through renovation of existing facilities. It is anticipated that a new retail market will be constructed at the southeast end of Lander Terry to serve the West Campus neighborhood.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The plan proposes to achieve these goals in the following steps. The site designations are taken from the January 2003 University of Washington Master Plan, Seattle Campus. 1. Site 32W: 488 Residence Hall Student Beds (5 stories) above a concrete plinth. The first floor would be partially assigned as residence hall program space, with 20,000 gross square feet dedicated to HFS offices and retail or academic space. Proposed completion date is Fall 2011. 2. Site 33W: 250 Residence Hall Student Beds (5 stories) above a concrete plinth. The first floor would be partially assigned as residence hall program space with the remainder set aside as retail or academic space. Proposed completion date is Fall 2011. 3. Site 35W: 481 Residence Hall Student Beds (5 stories) above a concrete plinth. This site assumes that the existing Cavalier Apartment Building will be purchased and demolished. The first floor would be partially assigned as residence hall program space with the remainder to be set aside for the replacement of the existing ticket office and retail. Proposed completion date is Fall 2012. 4. Site 30W: 195 Apartment Student Beds (5 stories) above a concrete plinth. The first floor would be partially assigned as program or office space to support the student residents. Proposed completion date is Fall 2013. 5. Site 29W/42W: 656 Apartment Student Beds (5 stories) above a concrete plinth with a parking deck for 300 cars provided below grade. This project anticipates the demolition of Mercer Hall. It is anticipated that the proposed parking deck will address the parking requirements for each of the Residence Halls and Apartments sites. Proposed completion date is Fall 2013. 6. Renovation of all existing Residence Halls would occur in the following schedule: McMahon 2014, Terry 2015, Lander 2016, Haggett 2017, McCarty 2018, and Hansee 2019. 7. The Plan also recognizes that three additional student housing projects with parking are anticipated but specific sites are as yet unidentified. It is anticipated that the proposed buildings will be 5 stories above a concrete plinth with the first floor partially assigned as program space to support the student residents with the remainder assigned to tenant space. These include: a. 500 Apartment beds to be complete by 2016 b. 454 Residence Hall beds to be complete by 2018 c. 500 Apartment beds to be completed by 2020

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN

A G

C D

x x x

x x x x

J K University of Washington - Seattle LEGEND

Hansee

Commodore/Dutchess

McCarty

Terry/Lander

Haggett

Mercer

McMahon

Stevens Court/Stevens Court Addition

Laurel

Blakeley

Nordheim

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Planning Process In December 2006, Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas + Company and Anderson Strickler, LLC (the Planning Team) were engaged by the University of Washington to assist in the development of the 2007 – 2022 Comprehensive Housing Master Plan for its Seattle campus. The planning process included a series of on-campus workshops between January and July 2007 which included various campus constituency groups comprised of a cross-section of the University’s faculty, staff, and students. The process also included a tour of existing housing facilities to gauge current condition, use and potential renovation opportunities. To augment the data gained from University groups and facility tours the Planning Team conducted a local housing rental market analysis, a peer institution analysis and a web-based student housing survey which was sent to all students. The results of these efforts helped project a demand for potential student housing on campus. The Planning Team then developed ideal student community models for both residence halls and student apartments and evaluated sites on both the north and west campus for potential new housing density. Based on direction provided by the Housing & Food Service (HFS) Steering Committee and Advisory Committee the plan focuses all new housing on the West Campus while recommending renovation for the majority of existing residence halls. The Planning Team developed a fifteen-year financial pro forma indicating the sequence of both new construction and renovation to achieve the 2022 goals of the University. Oversight of the day to day aspects of the planning process was provided by the HFS Steering Committee with additional input from their Advisory Committee. In addition, the Planning Team met with the University President, Provost and other members of administrative leadership on two occasions during the process to ensure alignment with broader University initiatives.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

As part of the Comprehensive Housing Master Plan, Anderson Strickler, LLC (ASL) conducted a market analysis for the University of Washington. The goal of the market analysis was to inform the financial pro forma and the programming and design phases of the plan. After meeting with key stakeholders on campus, ASL conducted focus groups, a peer institution analysis, an off-campus market analysis, a web-based student survey and demand analysis. Currently, the University houses about 65% of first-time freshmen. However it finds it difficult to meet the demand for housing. The University has tripled double rooms and converted lounge space into sleeping rooms to handle the overflow. Even with these measures, upper-division students are turned away every year. The University houses 16% of its enrollment below the 22% median of its peers. With Residence hall room rates this low ($3,382 per person for the academic year for a double room in a traditional hall), the University rate is over $800 lower than the median of $4,222. Also, the University rates lowest amongst its peers for a suite (or cluster), with a rate of $3,882. When tuition, fees, room, and board are added together, the University is just below the median of $12,934. Like the University of Washington, its peer institutions offer a variety of living/ learning communities and theme housing. Such residences typically include academic spaces and provide opportunities to connect with those that share academic or personal interests. Communities are limited in size and many institutions charge an additional fee to residents living in these communities to cover costs of staff and onand off-campus activities. The University would like to enhance their living/learning communities as part of the comprehensive housing master plan implementation. The off-campus rental market is tight, particularly for students looking for affordable housing. The tightening of the rental market in Seattle is primarily driven by increased job growth. Between 2004 and 2006 the number of rental properties declined by 6,300 units; while 2,200 rental units opened, 8,500 rental units were converted to condominiums. Even though condominium sales peaked in 2005, the market is still strong. Conversion activity is expected to continue, albeit at a slower pace in 2007 and 2008. To compare rents, Table 1 shows a comparison of median rents for the off-campus market, and the median of rents that student survey respondents reported paying to rents offered in on-campus university apartments. The comparison indicates that students at the University are able to find off-campus rental housing for less than the market rents, although the gap decreases for multi-bedroom units. However, the rent at university apartments is less than the median market rent.

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Market Report Summar y

Market Report • Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Market

Monthly Rents Per Unit Studio

1BR

2BR

3BR

ASL Market Analysis (median)

$775

$895

$1,150

$1,350

Survey – Single Students (median)

$600

$650

$950

$1,311

$778

$940

$1,300

$648-$724

$750

$824

Survey – Students with Spouse/Partner/Children (median) UW Apartment Housing Table 1: Comparison ComparisonofofRental Rental Rates Table 1: Rates

For bothFor off-campus renters and students in university affordable and proximity to both off-campus renters andliving students living in housing, university housing,cost affordable campus cost facilities servicestoare the most important they considered deciding where to andand proximity campus facilities andfactors services are the most when important factors live. Off-campus renters also attribute highwhere importance to Off-campus a private bedroom theattribute character of the they considered when deciding to live. rentersand also neighborhood while university other students and the inclusion of utilihigh importance to ahousing privateresidents bedroomvalue andmeeting the character of the neighborhood while ties, internet and cable in theresidents housing rate. university housing value meeting other students and the inclusion of utilities,

internet andprovided cable ininput the housing rate. important areas for improvement in existing univerSurvey respondents into the most sity housing. Regarding facility improvements for those living in university housing, larger bedrooms, Survey respondents provided input into the most important areas for improvement sound insulation, control, faster/reliable Internet connections, for andthose improved are in existingtemperature university housing. Regarding facility improvements livinglighting in the five most important improvements. Studentssound living insulation, off campus temperature indicate that control, larger bedrooms, university housing, larger bedrooms, faster/ private bedrooms, space, and sound insulation, and faster/reliable Internet connection are reliablepersonal Internet storage connections, improved lighting are the five most important most important. desired improvements. Students living off campus indicate that larger bedrooms,

private bedrooms, personal storage sound insulation, and floor faster/reliable Regarding community improvements, providingspace, washers and dryers on every is a desirable im-

Internet are most provement for allconnection students whether theyimportant. are currently living in university housing or living off campus. Those living in university housing also believe that a late night food spot coffeeonshop, a community Regarding community improvements, providing washers and or dryers every floor is kitchen, aa convenience store, and a fitness weightwhether room arethey important amenities. Students living off desirable improvement for all or students are currently living in university campus share many the same beliefs, ranking community kitchen,housing late nightalso foodbelieve spot or coffee housing or of living off campus. Those living in university that a shop, fitness or weight lounge lounge as being important community late nightroom, food and spot aorsocial coffee shop,oratelevision community kitchen, a convenience store, and ima provements. fitness or weight room are important amenities. Students living off campus share many

of the same beliefs,and ranking community latehalls, nightsurvey food respondents, spot or coffee shop, livWhen asked about programs services available kitchen, in residence whether

fitness orhousing weight or room, and a ranked social lounge television lounge being important ing in university off campus their toporten preferences veryas similarly, the top three improvements. being thecommunity ability to live in a living/learning community, opportunities for social interaction with other residents, and living near others with similar hobbies. in residence halls, survey When asked about programs andinterests servicesoravailable

respondents, whether living university housing campusper-person ranked their topStudents ten The student survey featured eight unitinplans that were testedoratoff estimated rents. preferences veryoption similarly; the top three being the or ability to not live live in athere.” living/learning were asked to rank each as “preferred,” “acceptable,’’ “would The rents as-

community, opportunities for that social interaction with other residents, near and sumed that all units are furnished and rents include utilities, Internet access,and cableliving television,

others with similar or hobbies. local telephone service. Rentsinterests also assumed a 10-month academic-year lease and did not include a meal plan. The largest percentage of respondents (15%) stated that they prefer a four-single apartment over the other units tested, with another 51% finding the unit acceptable. However when “preferred” and “acceptable” responses are added together, a more traditional unit type -a two-single bedroom semisuite - is favored. Figure 1 shows survey response to the unit preference question for all respondents (students living in university housing and off campus).

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

Page 2

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

The student survey featured eight unit plans that were tested at estimated per-person rents. Students were asked to rank each option as “preferred,” “acceptable,’’ or “would not live there.” The rents assumed that all units are furnished and that rents include utilities, Internet access, cable television, and local telephone service. Rents also assumed a 10-month academic-year lease and did not include a meal plan. The largest percentage of respondents (15%) stated that they prefer a four-single apartment over the other units tested, with another 51% finding the unit acceptable. However when “preferred” and “acceptable” responses are added together, a more EXECUTIVE SUMMARY traditional unit OF type, a two-single bedroom semi-suite, is favored. Figure 1 shows UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS survey responses to the unit preference question for all respondents (students living in EXECUTIVE SUMMARY university housing and off campus). UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS Preferred Studio Apt

10%

2-SGL BR Apt

10%

4-SGLApt BR Apt10% 15% Studio 4-SGL 2-SGL BRBR AptSuite10%6% 12%

2-DBL 10%6% 2-DBLBR BRSemi-Suite Suite 6% DBL Room 12% 2-SGL BRTrad Semi-Suite

Would not live there

45%

50% Acceptable

Preferred

51%

45%

Would not 40% live there 40% 36%

56% 51%

34% 34%

62%

57%

36%

55% 56% 44%

34%

45%

50% 57%

10% 2-DBL 4-SGL BRBR AptSuite 15% 2-SGL 4-SGLBR BRSemi-Suite Suite 6%

Acceptable

39% 34% 51% 26%

62%

55%Respondents 2-DBL BR Semi-Suite 6% Figure 1: Unit Preference for All Survey Figure 1: Unit 6% Preference for All Survey Respondents 44% Trad DBL Room

26%

39% 51%

studenthousing housingoptions optionsininthe thesurvey survey had had been been available forfor autumn 2006 If If thethestudent availabletotothe therespondents respondents Figure 1: Unit Preference for All Survey Respondents when they were choosing their housing for the academic year, 22% of all respondents indicated they autumn 2006 when they were choosing their housing for the academic year, 22% of would have definitely lived therewould and 32% indicated theylived mightthere have lived 32% there.indicated indicated have If all therespondents student housing optionsthey in the survey haddefinitely been available to the and respondents for autumn 2006 they might have lived there. when they were choosing their housing for the academic year, 22% of all respondents they deBased on the results of the survey, ASL analyzed demand to estimate the number andindicated types of units would have lived there and 32% indicated theydemand might have lived there. sired by students. Toof estimate incremental demand (demand from students currently Based ondefinitely the results the survey, ASL analyzed to estimate thenot number andliving in University housing), ASL uses a four-step types units desired students. Toprocess. estimate incremental demand (demand Based onofthe results of theby survey, ASL analyzed demand to estimate the number and from types of units de-

students not currently living in housing), ASL astudents four-step sired students. estimate incremental demand (demand from notprocess. currently living in off Uni1)by Calculate theTocapture rate foruniversity each class by dividing theuses number of full-time students living camversity housing), ASL uses a four-step process. pus who are definitely interested in the proposed housing by the number of full-time students living off 1) Calculate the capture rate for each class by dividing the number of full-time campus who responded to the survey, as in the following example: off campus definitely interested in theofproposed housingliving by off cam1) students Calculateliving the capture rate forwho eachare class by dividing the number full-time students

thewho number of full-time students living off campus who the survey, as in living off pus are definitely interested in the proposed housing by responded the number to of full-time students NUMBER OF FULL-TIME OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS “DEFINITELY INTERESTED” IN CAMPUS HOUSING

the following example: campus who responded to the survey, as in the following example:

NUMBER OF FULL-TIME OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS RESPONDING TO SURVEY

NUMBER OFcapture FULL-TIME OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS INTERESTED” IN CAMPUSstudents HOUSINGin the respec2) Multiply the rate for each class by the“DEFINITELY number of full-time off-campus NUMBERpotential OF FULL-TIME OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS RESPONDING TO SURVEY tive class to determine interest.

2) Multiply capture rate for each class in byhousing the number of full-time off-campus students in the respec3) Sincethe converting potential interest to actual demand is a difficult undertaking depending tive on class to determine potential interest. many factors, assume a 50% closure rate for those who indicated they definitely would have lived in

2) Multiply the capture rate for each class by the number of full-time off-campus

the housing and a 25% closure rate for those who indicated they might have lived in the proposed hous3)students Since converting potential interest housing topotential actual demand is a difficult undertaking depending in the respective class toindetermine interest. ing (50% of those who said there was a 50/50 chance). on many factors, assume a 50% closure rate for those who indicated they definitely would have lived in the 4) housing 25% closure for those indicatedtothey might incremental have lived inhousing the proposed housApplyand the aclosure rate torate autumn 2006who enrollment calculate demand. Increing (50% ofdemand those who saidsame thereaswas a 50/50 chance). mental is the unmet demand. 18

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

4) Apply to the autumn 2006toenrollment calculate incremental housing IncreBasedthe on closure sample rate size of response the survey,to the confidence interval at a 95% demand. confidence level2 is mental demand is the in same unmet ±3.36%, resulting the as range for demand. unmet demand of between 2,724 and 4,105 beds of housing from full-

3) Since converting potential interest in housing to actual demand is a difficult undertaking depending on many factors, assume a 50% closure rate for those who indicated they definitely would have lived in the housing and a 25% closure rate for those who indicated they might have lived in the proposed housing (50% of those who said there was a 50/50 chance or a 25% closure rate). 4) Apply the closure rate to autumn 2006 enrollment to calculate incremental housing demand. Incremental demand is the same as unmet demand. Based on sample size of the response to the survey, the confidence interval at a 95% confidence level is ±3.36%, resulting in the range for unmet demand of between EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2,724 and 4,105 beds of housing from full-time off-campus students. The mid-point UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the range is 3,414 beds. Table 2 summarizes the results of the demand analysis UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING forOF full-time students currently living off campus by MASTER class. PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS Autumn 2006 Autumn 2006 Class Freshman Class Sophomore Freshman

Junior Sophomore Senior Junior

Full-time Off-Campus Full-time Enrollment Off-Campus 2,624 Enrollment 3,798 2,624

Graduate student Senior Professional student Graduate student Professional student

6,076 3,798 6,617 6,076 6,916 6,617

1,368 6,916 27,399 1,368

Definitely Interested Capture 50% Definitely Interested Rate Closure Capture 50% 23% 305 Rate Closure 12% 23% 9% 12%

11% 9% 6% 11% 7% 6% 7%

Table 2: Autumn 2006 Table 2: Potential PotentialDemand, Demand, Autumn 2006 27,399

Might Be Interested Capture 25% Might Be Interested Rate Closure Capture 25% 39% 258 Rate Closure

235 305 262 235

45% 39% 32% 45%

368 262 223 368

20% 32% 23% 20%

49 223 1,440 49

24% 23% 24%

1,440

425 258 480 425

335 480 393 335

Potential Demand Potential 562 Demand 660 562 741 660 703 741 616 703

83 393 1,974 83

132 616 3,414 132

1,974

3,414

InPotential order to Demand, distributeAutumn the demand for housing among the tested unit types, ASL Table 2006 among In order to2:distribute the demand for housing the tested unit types, ASL used the unit preferused the unit preferences from full-time off-campus students showing interest in the ences from students showing interest in the proposed Table shows the In order to full-time distributeoff-campus the demand for housing among the tested unit types,housing. ASL used the 3unit preferproposed housing. Table 3 shows the demand for each unit and room type at demand for each unit and room type at tested rents. To assist with the identification of unit types, ASL ences from full-time off-campus students showing interest in the proposed housing. Table 3 shows the tested rents. To assist with the identification of unit types, this report considers those considers those in green to tested be traditional housing, blue to be suite-style housing demand for eachhighlighted unit and room type at rents. Tostudent assist with the identification of unit types, ASL highlighted in green to be traditional student housing, blue to be suite-style housing (with living area), and yellow to be apartment-style housing (with living area and full kitchen). considers those highlighted in green to be traditional student housing, blue to be suite-style housing (with living area), and yellow to be apartment-style housing (with living area and full (with living area), and yellow to be apartment-style housing (with living area and full kitchen). kitchen). OFF Campus &

$5,150 Rent/AY $5,800 $5,150

Interested Student OFF Campus & Preference Interested Student 7% Preference 8% 7%

Incremental Demand Incremental 225 Demand 268 225

$7,500 $6,700 $8,950 $7,500

8% 10% 15% 8% 18% 15%

290 344 505 290 612 505

Unit Type Unit Type Traditional Double Room Two-Double-Bedroom Semi-Suite Traditional Double Room Two-Single-Bedroom Two-Double-BedroomSemi-Suite Semi-Suite

Two-Double-Bedroom Suite Two-Single-Bedroom Semi-Suite Four-Single-Bedroom Two-Double-BedroomSuite Suite

Four-Single-Bedroom Four-Single-Bedroom Apartment Suite Two-Single-Bedroom Apartment Four-Single-Bedroom Apartment

Studio Apartment Two-Single-Bedroom Apartment Total Studio Apartment

Table 3: DemandTotal by Unit Preference

Rent/AY

$6,250 $5,800 $6,050 $6,250 $6,700 $6,050

$8,600 $8,950 $8,600

20% 8% 10% 20%

676 268 344 676

14% 18% 100% 14%

494 612 3,414 494

100%

3,414

Table 3:Demand Demand Unit Preference Tablewho 3: bybyUnit Preference Students stated they were not interested in living in the proposed housing because the rent was too

high werewho given the chance to review the floorinplans again with rates that were because 5-6% lower. If thewas housStudents stated they were not interested living in the proposed housing the rent too19 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN ing was still too expensive, the students were asked to respond a last time with reduced rents of 5-6%. high were given the chance to review the floor plans again with rates that were 5-6% lower. If the housThe results demand for additional beds for a total ing was stillyielded too expensive, the an students were1,703 asked to respond a of last5,117. time with reduced rents of 5-6%.

Students who stated they were not interested in living in the proposed housing because the rent was too high were given the chance to review the floor plans again with rates that were 5-6% lower. If the housing was still too expensive, the students were asked to respond a last time with reduced rents of 5-6%. The results yielded demand for an additional 1,703 beds for a total of 5,117. The results of the market analysis indicate that the University should move ahead with confidence in planning additional student housing. The incremental demand from off-campus students does not include current overflow and therefore could be understated should the University decide to return existing rooms to their design capacity. Students currently living on campus also show a high level of interest in the tested units and their living preferences have been taken into consideration as the team evaluated new housing options as well as demolition and renovation options for existing housing.

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Market Report • Methodology Project Initiation The Planning Team met with key university stakeholders in January and February 2007 to discuss goals and objectives for the study. Topics included the scope of the comprehensive planning process, opportunities and external pressures for the housing system, enhancement of living/learning concepts, contemporary communities and models, housing’s role in the academic success of students, current housing rate and cost structure, facilities and maintenance, physical attributes of existing residence halls, technology, summer conferences and food service.

Focus Groups Six focus groups were held on January 16 and 17, 2007. A total of 72 students participated. Participants were divided by various student groups: 1) single students living in campus apartments, 2) students living in residence halls, 3) students living off campus, 4) students living on honors and engineering floors, 5) FYP (Freshman Year Program) students, and 6) graduate students. Using a moderator’s guide ASL developed with input from the University, the moderator asked each group about their current housing situation, advantages and disadvantages to living on or off campus, preferred unit types and amenities, and budget limitations. Results were used to craft survey questions. Focus group notes are in the Appendix.

Peer Institution Analysis The University supplied ASL with a list of 13 peer institutions: Arizona State University (ASU) Oregon State University (OSU) Stanford University (SU) University of Arizona (UA) University of California Berkeley (UCB) University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) University of Illinois (UI) University of Michigan (UM) University of North Carolina (UNC) University of Oregon (UO) University of Southern California (USC) University of Wisconsin Madison (UWM) Washington State University (WSU) Each campus was contacted in March or April 2007 to collect information regarding housing options, room rates, policies, amenities, trends, and new housing plans. Most institutions cooperated fully and collected data can be found in the Appendix. Additional information was obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) at http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/, the 2007 ACUHO-I Directory, and the 2007 Higher Education Directory.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

METHODOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Using input from the focus groups, the student survey, the Student Housing Off Campus Market Off-Campus Market Analysis Association, and local newspapers ASL compiled a list of more than 40 apartment Analysis Using input from focus groups, the student survey, the Student Housing Association, and local newspacomplexes, most within five miles of the University. ASL interviewed property pers ASL compiled a list of more than 40 apartment complexes, most within five miles of the University. managers to determine unit types, rents, occupancy, and amenities. Information ASL interviewed property managers to determine unit types, rents, occupancy, and amenities. Informawas also retrieved from the Internet, the Fall 2006 Central Puget Sound Real Estate tion was also retrieved from the Internet, the Fall 2006 Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research ReResearch Report, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other port, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other sources. Off-campus data are in sources. Off-campus data can be found in the Appendix. Attachment 4.

Student Sur vey ASL designed a student survey with input from campus administrators and students. Student The purpose ofSurvey the survey was to collect students’ demographic information, information on astudents’ currentwith housing situation, and information and on desired ASL designed student survey input from campus administrators students.unit The purpose of the types at estimated rents. The Web survey was posted from November 27 through survey was to collect students’ demographic information, information on students’ current housing December 2006. To notify students, University sent rents. an electronic situation, 21, and information on desired unit the types at estimated The Web mail survey was posted from message to one-third of the full-time population. As an incentive to respond to the mail message to November 27 through December 21, 2006. To notify students, UW sent an electronic survey, prizes were offered to four randomly-selected 1,190 one-third of the full-time population. As an incentive torespondents. respond to theWith survey, prizes were offered to responses from a distribution of 8,305, the survey achieved a 14.3% response rate. the survey four randomly-selected respondents. With 1,190 responses from a distribution of 8,305, Tabulations survey responses demographic information Appendix.5, while demoachieved a of 14.3% response rate3.and Tabulations of survey responsesare areininthe Attachment graphic information has been incorporated into Attachment 6.

Based on the results of the survey, ASL analyzed demand to estimate the number and Demand Analysis Demand Analysis types of units desired by students. To estimate incremental demand (demand from Based on results ofliving the survey, ASL analyzed demand estimate the number and types of units destudents notthecurrently in University housing), ASL to uses a four-step process. sired by students. To estimate incremental demand (demand from students not currently living in Uni-

versity ASL uses a four-step process. Step 1: housing), Capture Rate Calculate the capture rate for each class by dividing the number of full-time students Step 1: Capture Rate living off campus who are definitely interested in the proposed housing, by the Calculate the capture rate for each class by dividing the number of full-time students living off campus number of full-time students living off campus who responded to the survey, as in the who are definitely interested in the proposed housing, by the number of full-time students living off following example: campus who responded to the survey, as in the following example:

NUMBER OF FULL-TIME OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS “DEFINITELY INTERESTED” IN CAMPUS HOUSING NUMBER OF FULL-TIME OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS RESPONDING TO SURVEY

Step Potential Interest Step 2: 2: Potential Interest Multiplythe thecapture capturerate rate for for each each class Multiply classby bythe thenumber numberofoffull-time full-timestudents studentsininthe therespective class to determineclass potential interest. potential interest. respective to determine Step Closure Step 3: 3: Closure RateRate Sinceconverting converting potential potential interest demand is a isdifficult undertaking depending on Since interest ininhousing housingtotoactual actual demand a difficult many factors, assume a 50% closure rate for those who indicated they definitely would have lived in the undertaking depending on many factors, assume a 50% closure rate for those who housing and 25% closure rate for those who theyand might in the housing indicated theya definitely would have lived in indicated the housing a have 25% lived closure rateproposed for (50% of those who said there was a 50/50 chance). those who indicated they might have lived in the proposed housing (50% of those who said there was a 50/50 chance). 3 There were 837 off-campus responses and 353 on-campus responses.

6 22PageHANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

Step 4: Demand Apply the closure rate to autumn 2006 enrollment to calculate incremental housing demand. Incre-mental demand is the same as unmet demand. Using this process, ASL has determined that there is incremental demand of between 2,724 and 4,105 beds of housing. The mid-point of the range is 3,414 beds, referred to in this study as potential demand. The potential demand figure of 3,414 does not include current overflow or additional demand from units tested at discounted rents and therefore could be understated. Therefore, the University should move ahead with confidence in planning additional student housing.

*Enrollment, provided by the University, can be found in the Appendix.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Market Report • Current Housing Situation CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION

Housing Stock RESIDENCE HALLS Housing Stock There are Halls currently eight on-campus residence halls with the capacity to house 4,946 Residence

students. Table 4 describes the current capacity of existing residence halls. Most There are eight on-campus residence halls with the capacity to house 4,946 students. Table 4 describes halls are a traditional style with up to 50 students sharing a community bathroom. the current capacity of existing residence halls. Most halls are a traditional style with up to 50 students The exception is McMahon where eight or nine students live in a suite of four or five sharing a community bathroom. The exception is McMahon where eight or nine students live in a suite bedrooms sharing a living room, known as a cluster. of four or five bedrooms sharing a living room, known as a cluster. Room Type

Total Hall

Year Built

Number of Beds

No. of Beds

Single

Double

Triple

Quad

Haggett

1963

817

752

Hansee

1936

337

308

Lander

1957

830

320

471

Terry

1953

715

420

279

McCarty

1961-62

767

330

396

McMahon

1965

1,042

956

Mercer

1970

455

350

4,994

457

3,168

2104 House Total Number of Beds:

Single w/ Bath

Apt

4 1,206

1 87

Table 4: Traditional Residence Hall Capacity Table 4: Traditional Residence Hall Capacity

While there is no living requirement for freshmen, 65% of first-time freshmen live in campus housing. While there is no living requirement for freshmen, 65% of first-time freshmen live The demand for housing has increased in the past few years, forcing HFS to assign three students to in campus housing. The demand for housing has increased in the past few years, double rooms and four students to triple rooms in selected halls. Some lounges have also been conforcing HFS to assign three students to double rooms in selected halls. Some lounges verted to sleeping rooms to handle the overflow. have also been converted to sleeping rooms to handle the overflow. Per-person rates are based on room occupancy and there is no differential between residence halls. For Per-person rates are based on room occupancy and there is no differential between the 2006-07 academic year all single rooms are $4,770, double rooms are $3,882 per person, and triple residence halls. For the 2006-07 academic year all single rooms were $4,770, rooms are $3,111 per person. Students living in residence halls are required to subscribe to a declining double rooms were $3,882 per person, and triple rooms were $3,111 per person. balance meal living plan, accessible withhalls the University’s Husky Card. Students in residence are required to subscribe to a declining balance

meal plan, accessible with Internet the University’s Husky Room rates include all utilities, connection, andCard. cable television. Dining halls, espresso bars, cafes, and rates convenience are located in residence hallsand andcable throughout campus. All halls, units are furRoom includestores all utilities, Internet connection, television. Dining nished and community amenities include computer game rooms, espresso bars, cafes, and convenience storeslabs, are fitness locatedrooms, in residence halls TV andlounges, study

areas, laundry facilities, and some have music practice rooms.computer Outdoor recreathroughout campus. bicycle All unitsstorage, are furnished andhalls community amenities include tional facilities include basketball and volleyball. Being an urban campus, students can also take advanlabs, fitness rooms, game rooms, TV lounges, study areas, laundry facilities, bicycle tagestorage, of all thatand U-District businesses and restaurants have to offer. some halls have music practice rooms. Outdoor recreational facilities

include basketball and volleyball. Being an urban campus, students can also take

Student Apartments advantage of all that University-District businesses and restaurants have to offer.

The University owns and operates four student apartment complexes: Stevens Court, Stevens Court Addition, Blakeley Village, and Laurel Village. There are three additional apartment complexes available to UW students that are public/private partnerships managed by Lorig Associates: Nordheim Court, Commodore Duchess, and Radford Court. When added together and sorted by unit type, UW has the

Page 8

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

STUDENT APARTMENTS The University owns and operates four student apartment complexes: Stevens Court, StevensHOUSING Court Addition, Blakeley Village, and Laurel Village. There are CURRENT SITUATION CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION three additional apartment complexes available to students MASTER that are PLAN public/private UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS partnerships managed by Lorig Associates: Nordheim Court, Commodore Duchess, and Radford Court. When added together and sorted by unit type, the University has the capacity house 980 students in apartments that arebyrented byand the has bed741 and has capacity to house to 2,168 students in apartments that are rented the bed apartments that capacity to house 2,168 students in apartments that are rented by the bed and has 741 apartments that 741 apartments that are rented by the unit. (See Table 5 and Table 6.) are rented by the unit. (See Table 5 and Table 6.) are rented by the unit. (See Table 5 and Table 6.) Total No. Total No. Studio Studio of Beds of Beds Stevens Court 300 Stevens Court 300 Stevens Court Addition 220 Stevens Court Addition 220 Nordheim Court (p/pp) 460 18 Nordheim Court (p/pp) 460 18 Total Number of Beds: 980 18 Total Number of Beds: 980 18 Table 5:Single Single Student Apartments (Rented by the Bed) Table 5: Apartments (Rented by the Bed) Table 5: SingleStudent Student Apartments (Rented by the Bed)

1BR 1BR

2 2 2 2

Total No. Total No. Studio 1 BR Studio 1 BR of Units of Units Stevens Court Addition 43 43 Stevens Court Addition 43 43 Blakeley Village 80 Blakeley Village 80 Laurel Village 80 Laurel Village 80 Commodore Duchess (p/pp) 139 77 62 Commodore Duchess (p/pp) 139 77 62 Radford Court (p/pp) 399 252 Radford Court (p/pp) 399 252 Total Number of Units: 741 77 357 Total Number of Units: 741 77 357 Table 6: Single/Married/Family Apartments (Rented by the Unit) Table 6:6:Single/Married/Family Apartments (Rented(Rented by the Unit) Table Single/Married/Family Apartments by the Unit)

2BR 2BR

4BR 4BR

6BR 6BR 192 192

64 64 64 64

108 108 220 220 376 376 704 704

2BR 2BR

3BR 3BR

54 54 56 56

26 26 24 24

114 114 224 224

33 33 83 83

192 192

Single-student apartment housing at Stevens Court and and Stevens Court Addition is furnished and rent Single-student apartment housing at Stevens Court Stevens Court Addition is Single-student apartment housing at Stevens Court and Stevens Court Addition is furnished and rent includes utilities, Ethernet, and satellite television. 2006-07 rent television. is $571 per2006-07 month, per person. All are furnished and rent includes utilities, Ethernet, and satellite rent includes utilities, Ethernet, and satellite television. 2006-07 rent is $571 per month, per person. All are private in month, four- or six-person wasbedrooms $571 per person.units. All are private bedrooms in four- or six-person private bedrooms in four- orper six-person units. units. Single-student apartment housing at Nordheim Court is furnished and rent includes utilities, Ethernet, Single-student apartment housing at Nordheim Court is furnished and rent includes utilities, Ethernet, apartmentamenities housing include at Nordheim Court is furnished androom rent includes and Single-student Husky TV. Community a fitness center, community with kitchen, and onand Husky TV. Community amenities include a fitness center, community room with kitchen, and onutilities, facilities. Ethernet, Per-person and Huskymonthly TV. Community amenities a fitness site laundry rent starts at $795 include for a studio, $780center, for a two-bedroom unit, site laundry facilities. Per-person monthly rent starts at $795 for a studio, $780 for a two-bedroom unit, 5 community room with kitchen, and on-site laundry facilities. Per-person monthly rent and $645-$684 for a four-bedroom unit.5 and $645-$684 for a four-bedroom unit. starts at $795 for a studio, $780 for a two-bedroom unit, and $645-$684 for a Rent for Blakeley Village and Laurel Village is $750 per month for a two-bedroom unit and $824 for a Rentfour-bedroom for Blakeley Village unit. and Laurel Village is $750 per month for a two-bedroom unit and $824 for a three-bedroom unit. One-bedroom units at Stevens Court Addition rent for $648-$724 per month. three-bedroom unit. One-bedroom units at Stevens Court Addition rent for $648-$724 per month. RentVillage for Blakeley Village and are Laurel Village was $750 per month for a two-bedroom Blakely and Laurel Village unfurnished apartments with a washer/dryer connection in each Blakely Village and Laurel Village are unfurnished apartments with a washer/dryer connection in each unit and $824 for a three-bedroom unit. One-bedroom units at Stevens Court unit. Rent does not include utilities, but includes a parking space (one per unit). The complexes share a unit.Addition Rent does notfor include utilities,per butmonth. includes a parking space (one per unit). The complexes share a rent $648-$724 Blakely Village and Laurel Village are community center for group activities. The one-bedroom units at Stevens Court Addition, designed for community center for group with activities. The one-bedroom units in at each Stevens Court unfurnished apartments a washer/dryer connection unit. RentAddition, does notdesigned for married students or domestic partners, are unfurnished. Rent includes utilities, satellite television, and married students or domestic partners, are unfurnished. Rent includes utilities, satellite include utilities, but includes a parking space (one per unit). The complexes sharetelevision, and Ethernet. There is an on-site laundry facility. Ethernet. There is center an on-site laundryactivities. facility. The one-bedroom units at Stevens Court a community for group Addition, designed for married students or domestic partners, are unfurnished. Rent Housing Satisfaction Housing Satisfaction includes utilities, satellite television, and Ethernet. There is an on-site laundry facility. Focus group participants indicate that the biggest advantage to living on campus is the convenience to Focus group participants indicate that the biggest advantage to living on campus is the convenience to classes and campus resources. Students also appreciate the ability to socialize with other students, abilclasses campusEVANS resources. Students appreciate the ability to socialize with other students, abil26 and HANBURY WRIGHT VLATTAS +also COMPANY ity to easily participate in campus activities, and the ability to focus on their studies. Paying one rate for ity to easily participate in campus activities, and the ability to focus on their studies. Paying one rate for rent, utilities, furnishings, and Internet adds to the convenience of living on campus for undergraduate rent, utilities, furnishings, and Internet adds to the convenience of living on campus for undergraduate

Housing Satisfaction Focus group participants indicate that the biggest advantage to living on campus is the convenience to classes and campus resources. Students also appreciate the ability to socialize with other SITUATION students, ability to easily participate in campus CURRENT HOUSING activities, and the ability to focus on their studies. Paying one rate for rent, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS utilities, furnishings, and Internet adds to the convenience of living on campus for undergraduate students; there are no monthly bills to pay. Those in traditional residence halls havebills to clean community bathrooms andhalls are do notnot have to clean the students; there aredo no not monthly to pay.the Those in traditional residence concerned with cooking meals since there is a mandatory meal plan. And there is an community bathrooms and are not concerned with cooking meals since there is a mandatory meal plan. “awesome” from some lounges andlounges bedrooms which is much by And there is anview “awesome” view from several and bedrooms whichappreciated is much appreciated by resiresidents. dents. Based survey responses, students are generally satisfied withcurrent their current living whether Based onon survey responses, students are generally satisfied with their living situation situation they live off campus orAs in shown university housing. As “very shown in Figure they live offwhether campus or in university housing. in Figure 2, when satisfied” and “satisfied” 2, added when together, “very satisfied” and “satisfied” are are added together, 91%ofofthose off-campus are 91% of off-campus students satisfied and 80% who live in university studentsareare satisfied and 80% offinds those who live in university satisfied. housing satisfied. ASL typically that off-campus residents housing are twiceare as “very satisfied” comASL to typically findsresidents that off-campus residents arecase twice as “very satisfied” compared to pared on-campus which seems to be the at UW. on-campus residents which also seems to be the case at the University. 6%

6% 14%

49%

Very dissatisfied 59%

Satisfied

43% 21% Off Campus

Dissatisfied

Very satisfied

UW Housing

Figure 2: with Current Housing Situation Figure 2: Satisfaction Satisfaction with Current Housing Situation

Cross-tabulating satisfaction respondents’ current situation ASL Cross-tabulating satisfaction levellevel withwith respondents’ current living living situation allows allows ASL to examine satto examine satisfaction in Figure a different waywhere as Figure where “n” respondents is the number isfaction in a different way as 3 shows, “n” is 3theshows, number of survey from each of survey respondents each group. of insatisfaction comeswith little dissatgroup. The highest level offrom satisfaction comes The fromhighest studentslevel living UW apartments, from students university apartments, with little halls dissatisfaction. Results from hall responisfaction. Resultsliving from in those living in traditional residence are less clear. Residence thoseliving livingin inTerry traditional residence areHall, less and clear. Residence hallthe respondents dents Hall, Lander Hall, halls Hansee 2104 House have highest percentage of living in Terryresidents, Hall, Lander Hansee Hall, and 2104 dissatisfaction House have the highest “very satisfied” with aHall, number of residents expressing in these same halls. percentage of “very satisfied” residents, along with a number of residents expressing dissatisfaction in these same halls.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

CURRENTHOUSING HOUSINGSITUATION SITUATION CURRENT UNIVERSITYOF OFWASHINGTON WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVEHOUSING HOUSINGMASTER MASTERPLAN PLAN MARKET MARKETANALYSIS ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY

UW Aprtments UW Aprtments

Off Off Campus Campus

Very satisfied Very satisfied

Satisfied Satisfied

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

With par/rel, considered (n=70) With par/rel, considered (n=70) Rental housing campus (n=619) Rental housing offoff campus (n=619) Radford Court/ppp (n=16) Radford Court/ppp (n=16) Nordheim Court/ppp (n=19) Nordheim Court/ppp (n=19) Commodore Duchess/ppp (n=4) Commodore Duchess/ppp (n=4) Laurel Village (n=7) Laurel Village (n=7) Blakeley Village (n=8) Blakeley Village (n=8) Stevens Court Addition (n=15) Stevens Court Addition (n=15) Stevens Court Apts (n=16) Stevens Court Apts (n=16) Terry Hall (n=36) Terry Hall (n=36)

UW Residence Halls UW Residence Halls

Mercer Hall (n=27) Mercer Hall (n=27) McMahon Hall (n=53) McMahon Hall (n=53) McCarty Hall (n=46) McCarty Hall (n=46) Lander Hall (n=51) Lander Hall (n=51) Hansee Hall (n=20) Hansee Hall (n=20) Haggett Hall (n=30) Haggett Hall (n=30) 2104 House (n=5) 2104 House (n=5) 0%0%

20% 20%

40% 40%

60% 60%

80% 80%

100% 100%

Figure 3: Satisfaction Residence Figure3:3: Satisfaction byby Residence Figure Satisfaction by Residence

Importance Providing Housing Importance ofofProviding Housing Most survey respondents believe that it is extremely important for the University

Importance of Providing

Most surveyrespondents respondents believe thatitand itisisextremely extremelyimportant important forUW UWtotoprovide provide housingfor forfreshmen freshmen Housing Most believe that for housing to survey provide housing for freshmen international students. While the importance and international students. While the importance diminishes with each class level, respondents indicate anddiminishes international students. Whilelevel, the importance diminishes each class indicate with each class respondents indicatewith a fairly high level, level respondents of fairlyhigh highlevel level importance forsophomore sophomore andjunior junior housing and fortransfer transfer students. Thereisis a afairly importance for and housing and for students. There importance forofof sophomore and junior housing and for transfer students. There is less interest providing housing forseniors, seniors, graduate students, andstudents students withfamilies. families. Resultsare are less interest ininproviding housing for graduate students, and less interest in providing housing for seniors, graduate students, and with students withResults shown Figure shown ininFigure 4.4. are shown in Figure 4. families. Results 8%8%

14% 14%

20% 20%

7%7%

28% 28% 53% 53%

91% 91%

34% 34%

32% 32%

Notimportant important Not

Notvery veryimportant important Not

48% 48%

81% 81%

55% 55% 41% 41% 12% 12%

11% 11%

Junior Junior

Senior Senior

42% 42%

34% 34%

42% 42%

Soph Soph

10% 10% 22% 22%

40% 40%

Fresh Fresh

17% 17%

25% 25%

13% 13%

Graduate Transfer Transfer Internat'l Internat'l Graduate

Somewhatimportant important Somewhat

Extremelyimportant important Extremely

Family Family

Figure Importance of Providing Housing Figure 4: Importance of of Providing Housing Figure 4:4: Importance Providing Housing

28 HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY Page Page 1111

AND ER SONSTR STR KLER LL AND ER SON ICIC KLER , ,LL CC

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Survey respondents were asked if the quality of student housing had an impact on Survey respondents were asked if the quality of student housing had an impact on their decision to at their decision to attend the University of Washington over other universities. Of those Surveytend respondents asked if theand quality of student had in an university impact on housing, their decision to atUW overwere other colleges universities. Of housing those living 35% said that th living in university housing, 35% said that the housing had a significant or slightly tend UW over other andoruniversities. Of those living in university that the housing had a colleges significant slightly positive impact on their decision housing, to attend35% UW said as shown in Figur positive impact on their decision to attend the University of Washington. housing 5.had a significant or slightly positive impact on their decision to attend UW as shown in Figure Results are shown in Figure 5. 5.

59% 59% 17% 5%

Significant negative impact Slight negative impact

12%

16%

17%

Significant negative impact

12%

16%

51%

Slight negative impact No impact

51%

No impact Slight positive impact

30% 30%

Slight positive impact Significant positive impact

Significant positive impact

Off Campus University Housing Figure 5: Housing onHousing Decision to Attend Figure 5: Impact ImpactofofStudent Student Housing on Decision to Attend Off Campus University Figure 5: Impact of Student Housing on Decision to Attend

The consideredinintheir theirdecision decisionofof where The ten ten most most important important factors factors that students considered where to to live in autum live in are autumn 2006 are that shown in Figure 6. Forinin those livedofinwhere university housing, The ten most important students considered theirwho decision to live in autumn 2006 shown infactors Figure 6. For those who lived university housing, proximity to campus facilitie to campus facilities and services, affordability, and the ability to meet and 2006 proximity are shown in Figure 6. For those who lived in university housing, proximity to campus facilities and services, affordability, and the ability to meet and socialize with other students were the most im socialize with other students were most important factors. Forstudents those who and services, the ability meet and socialize with other werelived thefacilities most importantaffordability, factors. For and those who livedtothe off campus, affordability, proximity to campus and ser off campus, affordability, proximity to campus facilities and services, and a private portant factors. For those who lived off campus, affordability, proximity to campus facilities and services, and a private bedroom were the most important factors. bedroom were the most important factors. factors. vices, and a private bedroom were the most important University Housing (n=353)

University Housing (n=353)

Proximity to campus facilities and services Affordable cost Proximity to campus facilities and services Ability to meet students/social atmosphere Affordable cost

Inclusion utilities, Internet, & cable in rent Ability to meetof students/social atmosphere

Ability toInternet, live where friends are living Inclusion of utilities, & my cable in rent Have Ability to live where my friends are own livingbedroom Ability to be on a meal plan Have own bedroom Personal Ability to be on a meal plan safety Ability to cook meals Personal safety Physical condition the housing Ability to cookofmeals Affordable Physical condition of the housing cost

Off Campus (n=837)

Proximity to campusAffordable facilities and costservices Have own bedroom Proximity to campus facilities and services Character neighborhood Have own of bedroom Ability to cook meals Character of neighborhood Ability to liveAbility whereto mycook friends are living meals

Physical condition the housing Ability to live where my friends areofliving Proximity bus line/public transportation Physicalto condition of the housing from rules and regulations Proximity to busFreedom line/public transportation Personal safety Freedom from rules and regulations Personal safety

0 0

500 500

1000

1500

We ight e d S c a le

2000

1000 1500 2000 2500 (M o st Impo rtant=5, 2nd=4, 3rd=3, 4th=2, 5th=1)

We ight e d S c a le (M o st Impo rtant=5, 2nd=4, 3rd=3, 4th=2, 5th=1)

Figure 6: Decision-Making Factors for Choosing Housing Figure 6: Decision-Making Factors for Choosing Housing Figure 6: Decision-Making Factors for Choosing Housing

Page 12 Page 12

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING HOUSING PLAN , 29 ANDAER SON STRATEGIC STR IC KLER LL C

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

PEER INSITUTION ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Market Report • Peer Institution Analysis

PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS Trends Out of all of the comparison institutions, University of Michigan (UM) has historically

Trends provided the highest number of beds. Since 2002, UCLA has increased its housing

Out of all of thecurrently comparison institutions, University Michiganof(UM) has historically stock and offers over 13,000 beds. ofUniversity Oregon (UO) has provided the highest number of offered beds. Since 2002, UCLA hasofincreased itsdid housing stock and currently offers over traditionally the fewest number beds, but add nearly 400 beds last

13,000 beds. University of Oregon has traditionally offered fewest number over of beds, but did add year. Figure 7 illustrates the(UO) number of beds offered bythe each institution a fivenearlyyear 400 period; beds last2000-2005. year. Figure 7 illustrates the number beds 500 offered by each institution over a fiveThe University addedofover beds during this period. year period; 2000-2005.6 UW added over 500 beds during this period. 14,000

UCLA UM

12,000

SU UI

10,000 Number of Beds

UWM UNC

8,000

WSU USC

6,000

ASU 4,000

UA UW

2,000

OSU UO

0 '00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

Figure 7: Housing HousingCapacity, Capacity, 2000 – 2005 Figure 7: 2000-2005

Capacity for autumn 2006, shown in Figure 8, is based on data collected by ASL.7 UCLA has the highest

Capacity forand autumn 2006, in Figure is based on at data collected by capacity at 13,269 Oregon State shown University has the8, lowest capacity 3,885. With capacity for 6,715 ASL.UW UCLA has the the highest capacity students, is just below median of 7,565.at 13,269 and Oregon State University has

the lowest capacity at 3,885. With capacity for 6,715 students, the University of Washington is just below the median of 7,565.

6 Chart provided by The National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS), http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds. UC Berkeley is not included because the number of beds could not be confirmed.

Chart provided by The National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS), http:// nces.ed.gov/ipeds. UC Berkeley is not included because the number of beds could not be confirmed. 7 Autumn 2006 capacity includes beds/units in all residence halls, apartments, and public/private partnerships. Autumn 2006 capacity includes beds/units in all residence halls, apartments, and public/private partnerships.

Page 13

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS University of California Los Angeles

13,269

University of Michigan

11,241

Stanford University University of California Los Angeles University of Illinois University of Michigan University of North Carolina Stanford University University of Wisconsin Madison University of Illinois Arizona State University University of North Carolina University of California Berkeley University of Wisconsin Madison University of Washington Arizona State University University of Southern California University of California Berkeley Washington State University University of Washington University of Arizona University of Southern California University of Oregon Washington State University Oregon State University University of Arizona

10,350

4,418 3,885

University of Oregon Figure 8:Autumn Autumn 2006 Capacity Figure 8: 2006 Capacity

9,930 11,241 8,800 10,350 8,084 9,930 7,577 8,800 7,552 8,084 6,715 7,577 6,574 7,552 6,101 6,715 6,055 6,574

13,269

6,101 6,055

4,418

University 3,885 When comparing Oregon beds toState enrollment, Stanford University has historically housed the highest percentage

comparing beds to enrollment, Stanford University has historically housed the of itsWhen population. This is2006 likelyCapacity related to the fact that Stanford guarantees housing for all undergraduate Figure 8: Autumn

highest percentage of its between population. This likely housing related between to the fact students. UW remained stable 2000 andis 2005, 12%that andStanford 14% of its enrollWhen comparing beds to enrollment, Stanford University has historically housed the highest guarantees for all undergraduate students. The University remained stablepercentage ment, as shown inhousing Figure 9. of itsbetween population. Thisand is likely related to thebetween fact that Stanford guarantees housing for all undergraduate 2000 2005, housing 12% and 14% of its enrollment, as students. shownUW in remained Figure 9. stable between 2000 and 2005, housing between 12% and 14% of its enroll-

70%

ment, as shown in Figure 9.

SU UCLA

60% 70%

UM SU WSU UCLA UNC UM OS WSU UI UNC UWM OS USC UI UO UWM UA USC UW UO ASU UA

50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 20% 30% 10% 20% 0% 10%

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

ASU

0% 9: Beds as Percent of Enrollment; 2000 - 2005 Figure '00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

Figure 9: Beds Bedsas asPercent Percent Enrollment; 2000 - 2005 Figure 9: of of Enrollment, 2000-2005

Page3214

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Beds to enrollment for autumn 2006 is shown in Figure 10. ASU ranks lowest (15%) and Stanford ranks highest, housing 70% of its enrollment. The University of Beds to enrollment for autumn 2006 is shown in Figure 10. ASU ranks lowest (15%) and Stanford ranks Washington ranks below the median of 22%, housing 16% of enrollment. highest, housing 70% of its enrollment. UW ranks below the median of 22%, housing 16% of enrollment. Stanford University

70%

University of California Los Angeles

36%

University of Illinois

33%

University of North Carolina

32%

University of M ichigan

28% 26%

Washington State University University of California Berkeley

23%

University of Oregon

22%

University of Southern California

20%

University of Wisconsin M adison

19%

Oregon State University

20%

University of Washington

16%

University of Arizona

16%

Arizona State University

15%

Figure 10: Beds Bedsas asPercent Percent Enrollment, Autumn Figure 10: of of Enrollment, Autumn 2006 2006

Cost

At $9,470 per person, perBerkeley’s academichousing year, UC housing for a double At $9,470Cost per person, per academic year, UC rateBerkeley’s for a double room inrate a traditional in a traditional the highest the peer group. The next highest residence hall is room the highest in the peer residence group. Thehall nextishighest rate is in $7,444 at the University of CalirateThe is $7,444 at isthe University of California Los Angeles. TheUW’s lowest $3,212 fornia Los Angeles. lowest rate $3,212 at the University of Illinois. At $3,382 raterate fallsisover the University Illinois. At $3,382, the University of Washington’s rate falls $800 below the at median of $4,222.ofFigure 11 shows the traditional double room rate for all institutions over $800 below of $4,222. Figurethe 11lowest showsrate thefor traditional offering this room type. An (L) after the the median institution’s name indicates this roomdouble type room for rate all institutions offering this room type. An than (L) after name and (H) indicates the rate highest for those institutions that charge more one the rateinstitution’s for a similar indicates the lowest type andstudent (H) indicates theahighest rate for room type. The green bar indicates therate rentfor thatthis wasroom tested on the survey for new traditional institutions ratethan for the a similar type. The green residence hall. Atthose $5,150, the testedthat rentcharge was justmore aboutthan $900one higher medianroom rate of $4,222. bar indicates the rent that was tested on the student survey for a new traditional residence hall. At $5,150, the tested rent was just about $900 higher than the median rate of $4,222.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

Page 15

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

$9,470

University of California Berkeley

$7,444

University of California Los Angeles

$6,490

University of Southern California (H)

$5,886

University of Wisconsin Madison (H)

$5,572

Stanford University (H) Tested on Survey

$5,150

University of Wisconsin Madison (L)

$5,136 $4,830

University of North Carolina (H)

$4,677

University of Arizona (H)

$4,431

Oregon State University (H)

$4,400

University of Southern California (L)

$4,044

Oregon State University (L) University of Oregon (H)

$4,025

Washington State University (H)

$3,990

University of North Carolina (L)

$3,960

University of Arizona (L)

$3,913

University of Washington

$3,882 $3,703

Stanford University (L)

$3,694

Arizona State University

$3,500

University of Oregon (L)

$3,390

Washington State University (L)

$3,212

University of Illinois

Figure 11: Room Rate room in ain Traditional Residence Hall Hall Figure 11: Room Ratefor forDouble Double Room a Traditional Residence

When comparing the rates a double room in room a suite-style unit, UW’sunit, ratethe is the lowest at $3,882. When comparing the for rates for a double in a suite-style University’s rate is UC

Berkeley is the highest at $10,285-$12,250. suite was tested on UW survey at the lowest at $3,882. UC Berkeley isA two-double the highest bedroom at $10,285-$12,250. A the two-double $6,050, aboutsuite $900was higher thanonthe of $5,146. Double room rates for suites compared in bedroom tested themedian web-based survey at $6,050, about $900are higher Figure than12.the median of $5,146. Suite (or cluster) room rates are compared in Figure 12. University of California Berkeley (H)

$12,250

University of California Berkeley (L)

$10,285

University of California Los Angeles

$9,189

University of Southern California (H)

$7,320

University of Southern California (L)

$7,040

Tested on Survey

$6,050

University of Michigan (H)

$5,146

Arizona State University (H)

$5,008

University of Michigan (L)

$4,556

Washington State University (H)

$4,290

Arizona State University (L)

$4,054

Washington State University (L)

$3,990

University of Washington

$3,882

Figure 12: Room Ratefor for Figure 12: Room Rate a Double Suite (orRoom cluster)in a Suite

Page 16 34

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Apartment housing is offered at all peer institutions. Unit configurations vary between studio units andissix-single-bedroom units. All but institutions vary offerbetween apartments Apartment housing offered at all peer institutions. Unitfour configurations studio units and to single students at a per-bed rate, usually billed on a semester or academic-year six-single-bedroom units. All but four institutions offer apartments to single students at a per-bed rate, basis. All on buta two peer or institutions offer basis. married/family and rent offer is charged usually billed semester academic-year All but twohousing peer institutions married/family by the unit on a monthly basis. housing and rent is charged by the unit on a monthly basis. When tuition, and8 board aretogether, added together, ofCalifornia Southern is the most When tuition, fees, fees, room,room, and board are added UniversityUniversity of Southern

California the most expensive of UW the is comparison institutions. University of Total cost expensive of theiscomparison institutions. just below the median ofThe $12,934 at $12,504.

Washington is just below the median of 13. $12,934 at $12,504. Total cost to attend 9 to attend at peer institutions is shown in Figure at peer institutions is shown in Figure 13. Room

Board

ASU

$ 3,694$ 1,900 $ 4,690

$10,284

$ 3,990 $ 2,336 $ 4,754

$11,080

UNC

$ 3,960 $ 2,200 $ 5,033

$11,193

OSU

$ 4,044 $ 2,670

$ 5,643

$12,357

WSU

$ 3,390 $ 3,154

$ 5,887

$12,431

$ 3,882 $ 2,619

$ 6,003

$12,504

$ 3,500 $ 4,025

$ 3,212 $ 4,020

UCLA

$ 7,444

UCB

$ 9,470

$ 3,703

USC

$ 4,400

Tuition & Fees

$13,363

$ 5,838

$17,198

$ 9,966 $ 2,905 $ 2,500

$ 7,143 $ 7,434

$17,492 $19,404 $ 32,994

$ 4,796 $ 4,889

$ 33,892

$41,493 $43,181

Figure 13: Figure 13: Total TotalCost CosttotoAttend Attend

Living/Learning Like the University of Washington, peer institutions offer a variety of living/learning Living/Learning Communities Communities communities and theme housing. Such residences typically include academic

Like UW, peer institutions offer a variety of living/learning communities10 and theme housing. Such

resources and provide opportunities to connect with those that share academic or personal interests. Communities are limited in size and many institutions charge an share academic or personal interests. Communities are limited in size and many institutions charge an additional fee to residents living in these communities to cover costs of staff and onadditional fee to residents living in these communities to cover costs of staff and on- and off-campus and off-campus activities.

residences typically include academic resources and provide opportunities to connect with those that

activities.

Tuition and fees are from the 2007 Higher Education Directory, room rates are based on a double room in a traditional residence hall, and board rates are equivalent to a 13-14 meal per week plan. University of Arizona, University of Michigan, and UW Madison are not included because the board hall, and board rates are equivalent to a 13-14 meal per week plan. rate could not be confirmed. Also known as Residential Colleges 9

8 Tuition and fees are from the 2007 Higher Education Directory, room rates are based on a double room in a traditional residence

University of Arizona, University of Michigan, and UW Madison are not included because the board rate could not be confirmed.

10 Also known as Residential Colleges

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

Page 17

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

The most common living/learning community is the Freshman Year Experience (FYE) or Freshmen Interest Group (FIG). These programs are designed for first-year freshmen and participants take classes together during their first year. Typically there is a freshmen seminar or class that meets in the residence hall and includes interaction with faculty members. There is often a community service component. These programs are supported by academic affairs and/or student affairs departments. Participation in a FYE or FIG program fosters academic success, personal development, and leadership opportunities. The FYE and FIG programs are an excellent way for incoming students to transition to college life. Other common living/learning communities focus on honors or academic themes, language and culture, cross-cultural groups, science, engineering, and health sciences, business, and health, wellness, or life-style. Arizona State University Arizona State University is opening 1,866 apartment beds in fall 2008. In addition, the University will open 1,800 residence hall beds in fall 2009. Oregon State University Through a public/private partnership, a single-student apartment-style facility for sophomores and above opened in May 2006. The University has no plans for additional housing at this time. Stanford University Stanford University has been continuously adding to its stock of graduate and undergraduate housing for decades. In recent years, over 800 graduate studio apartments have been completed and the University has begun construction of another 600-bed graduate apartment complex. Additional undergraduate housing is planned as part of the Housing Master Plan and includes 500-single bedroom suites and a small, independent house with “green dorm” construction. University of California Berkeley The first phase of West Village Apartments opened in July 2006 consisting of 258 two and three-bedroom family units. The second phase, of one-bedroom units, will open in July 2008. UC Berkeley is implementing a comprehensive housing plan that calls for building new and demolishing older housing. University of California Los Angeles The University completed the 765-bed Hendrick Summit Residence in 2005 as well as the 623-bed Reiber Vista. The University completed the 600-bed Reiber Terr in 2006. Plans call for 2,500 additional undergraduate beds over time. University of Illinois A new residence hall is being built, however, there will be no net change to the number of beds offered as other buildings will be taken offline.

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Newest Housing Plans

University of Michigan A suite-style residence hall is under construction. University of North Carolina The University opened 920 apartment beds in Ram Village in fall 2006. The complex consists mostly of three and four-bedroom units with private and shared bedrooms. The University is also completing a renovation of an 860-bed hall in fall 2007. New family apartments opened in 2005. University of Oregon The University opened a 387-bed living/learning community last year. A comprehensive housing study is underway. University of Southern California The University will open 440 beds in fall 2007 with an Arts and Humanities theme.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Market Report • Off-Campus Market Over view Across the country, the absorption of multi-family rental units is low; in the fourth quarter of 2006 building permit approval decreased 11.9% from the year before. However, the Northwest region showed a 5% increase with the State of Washington accounting for nearly all the permits and was up by 23%. While the national rental vacancy rate was 9.8%, the Seattle metropolitan area vacancy rate was 4% at the end of 2006. The tightening of the rental market in Seattle is mostly driven by increased job growth. The State of Washington accounted for half of the new jobs in the region with strength from the manufacturing industry. Most job growth is clustered in the Seattle metropolitan area. In the past year, Boeing Company added nearly 6,000 employees. Other strong employers in the area are Microsoft, Starbucks, Nordstroms, and Weyerhaeuser. The average unemployment rate has declined from 4.9% to 4.3% in the past year. Between 2004 and 2006 the number of rental properties declined by 6,300 units; while 2,200 rental units opened, 8,500 rental units were converted to condominiums. Multi-family development activity has been concentrated in downtown Seattle where 2,600 condominiums and 1,600 rental units have been completed, are under construction, or have been permitted since October 2005. Even though condominium sales peaked in 2005, the market is still strong. New and existing condominium sales totaled 13,750 units in 2006. Condominium conversions usually sell for much below new condominium prices and conversion activity is expected to continue, albeit at a slower pace, in 2007. Although Seattle offers numerous housing options for students, the loss of rental properties has created a tight rental market. There are few concessions offered and students looking for affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods may be forced to choose to live in Seattle’s outlying areas where there has been much growth and the rental market is not as tight.

Rental Rates ASL researched nearly 50 apartment complexes, most within five miles of campus. Twenty-five properties offer studio apartments, 39 offer one-bedroom units, 37 offer two-bedroom units, and 14 offer three-bedroom units. Figure 14 shows the low, median, and high rents for each unit type where ‘n’ is the number of rents used in the calculation.

The Northwest region includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. Information for this section is summarized from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development: U.S. Housing Market Conditions Re-port, 4th quarter, 2006.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS Low

Median

High

Low

Median

High

$3,295

$2,495

$2,400

$2,495

$2,400

$1,495

$1,350

$1,150 $895

$775 $1,495 $400

$1,150 $895

$775

$825

$775

$575

$1,350

$825

$775

$575

$400

Studio n=45 25 properties Studio Figure 14: Market MarketRents Rents Figure 14: n=45 25 properties

One Bedroom n=70 39 properties One Bedroom n=70 39 properties

Two Bedroom n=68 37 properties Two Bedroom n=68 37 properties

Three Bedroom n=21 14 propeties Three Bedroom n=21 14 propeties

For single survey respondents that rent housing on their own, and do not share a bedroom, the total Figure 14:survey Market median monthly costrespondents ofRents housing ranges fromhousing $490 peronmonth, per person for not a unit withaover four bedFor single that rent their own, and do share

rooms ($425 rent andmedian $65 utilities andhousing other to $750 pernot month, per person for onebedroom, the total monthly cost of expenses) housing ranges $490 per For single survey respondents that rent on their own, andfrom do share a month, bedroom, thea total 13 Figure 15 shows the median per perbedroom unit ($650 rent and $100 utilities and other expenses). per person for a unit with over four bed-rooms ($425 rent and $65 utilities and other median monthly cost of housing ranges from $490 per month, per person for a unit with over four bed-

son monthly cost of housing for all per unit types is to the$750 number ofmonth, respondents. Figure expenses) $750 per for a‘n’ one-bedroom unit ($650per rent and rooms ($425 to rent and $65 month, utilities andperson otherwhere expenses) per person for16a shows onethe median per unit monthly cost of all housing types rented by students living with their spouse, $100 utilities and other expenses). Figure 15 shows the median per person monthly 13 bedroom unit ($650 rent and $100 utilities and other expenses). Figure 15 shows the median per partperner, and/or children. cost of housing all unit where is the of respondents. Figure 16 16 shows son monthly cost offor housing fortypes all unit types‘n’ where ‘n’ number is the number of respondents. Figure

theper median per unit monthly cost of types all housing types rented by students theshows median unit monthly cost of all housing rented by students living with theirliving spouse, partwith theirchildren. spouse, partner, $750 and/or children. ner, and/or $688 $88 $688 $88

$100 $750 $100

$600

$650

$600

$650

$550 $75 $550

Utilities Rent $517

$525

$80

$75

$490

Utilities

$65

Rent

$517

$525

$75 $475

$80 $437

$75 $450

$475

$437

$450

$425

$490 $65 $425

Studio

1 BR

2 BR

3 BR

4 BR

Over 4 BR

(n=15)

(n=73)

(n=98)

(n=67)

(n=55)

(n=75)

Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Over 4 BR Figure 15: Single Students – Median Monthly Housing Cost by Unit Type per Person (n=15) (n=73) (n=98) (n=67) (n=55) (n=75) Figure 15: Single Students – Median Monthly Housing by Type Unitper Type per Person Figure 15: Single Students - Median Monthly Housing Cost Cost by Unit Person

13 Other housing expenses include local telephone, Internet, basic cable, and parking.

Page 21

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

13 Other housing expenses include local telephone, Internet, basic cable, and parking.

Page 21

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS OFF-CAMPUS MARKET UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS Utilities

$1,670

$938 $160 $938

$1,140 $200 $1,140

$160 $778

$200 $940

$778

$940

$1,670 $370 $370

Rent Utilities $1,100

Rent

$200 $1,100

$1,300 $1,300

$200 $900 $900

1 BR

2 BR

3 BR

4 BR

(n=44) 1 BR

(n=47) 2 BR

(n=5) 3 BR

(n=5) 4 BR

Figure with Spouse/Partner/Children – Median Monthly Housing Cost per Unit Figure(n=44) 16: Students Students with Spouse / Partner /Children(n=5) - Median Monthly Housing Cost per Unit (n=47) (n=5) 16: Students with Spouse/Partner/Children – Median Monthly Housing Cost per and Unitthe meToFigure compare rents,rents, Table 7 shows a comparison of median for the off-campus market To compare Table 7 shows a comparison of rents median rents for the off-campus

dianmarket of rents thatthe students paying the student survey tofrom rents in survey UW apartments. and medianreport of rents thatfrom students report paying theoffered student To compare rents, Table 7 shows a comparison of median rents for the off-campus market and the meThe comparison indicates that students at UW are able to find off-campus rental housing for rentsthat offered in university apartments. comparison that in students at less than dian oftorents students report paying from the The student survey toindicates rents offered UW apartments. the the market rents, although the gap are decreases forfind multi-bedroom units. The rent at UW apartments is University of Washington able to off-campus rental housing for less than The comparison indicates that students at UW are able to find off-campus rental housing for less than alsothe lessmarket than the median market the rent.gap decreases for multi-bedroom units. The rent at rents, although the market rents, although the gap decreases for multi-bedroom units. The rent at UW apartments is

university apartments is also also less than the median market rent. less than the median market rent.Monthly Rents Per Unit Market

Studio

1BR 2BR 3BR Monthly Rents Per Unit $775 $895 $1,150 $1,350 Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR Survey – Single Students (median) $600 $650 $950 $1,311 ASL Market Analysis (median) $775 $895 $1,150 $1,350 Survey – Students with Spouse/Partner/Children (median) $778 $940 $1,300 Survey – Single Students (median) $600 $650 $950 $1,311 UW Apartment Housing $648-$724 $750 $824 Survey – Students with Spouse/Partner/Children (median) $778 $940 $1,300 Table 7: Comparison of Rental Rates UW Apartment Housing $648-$724 $750 $824 Market ASL Market Analysis (median)

Table Rental Rates Table 7: Comparison Comparison ofofRental Rates Policies and Amenities At properties the and properties ASL polled, security deposits range from $2,400, on the property. Policies and Amenities At the ASL polled, security deposits range from $200 to $200 $2,400,todepending Policies Amenities

depending on the property.offer Nearly all apartment complexes lease Nearly all apartment complexes a 12-month lease but many offeroffer a sixaor12-month nine-month lease and a At the properties ASL polled, security deposits range from $200 to $2,400, depending on the property. offer a six or nine-month lease and aare few offer month-to-month few but offermany month-to-month leases. Therefore, students able to find flexible leaseleases. terms to meet their Nearly all apartment complexes offer a 12-month lease but many offer a six or nine-month lease and a Therefore, areinclude able toutilities find flexible lease terms to gas, meetheat). their Including needs. Very needs. Very fewstudents complexes in the rent (electricity, water/sewer is few offer month-to-month leases. Therefore, students are able to find flexible lease terms to meet their few complexes include utilities in the rentproperties (electricity, gas, heat). water/ more common. It is uncommon for off-campus to include cableIncluding or satellite television in the needs. Very few complexes include utilities in the rent (electricity, gas, heat). Including water/sewer is is more common. It is access. uncommon forhalf off-campus properties to include cablemany or have rentsewer but a few do include internet Nearly of the properties permit pets, though more common. It is uncommon for off-campus properties to include cable or satellite television in the satellite television in the but aa deposit few doand/or include internetfee. access. Nearly half of the weight or breed restrictions andrent require monthly rent but a few do include internet access. Nearly half of the properties permit pets, though many have properties permit pets, though many have weight or breed restrictions and require a deposit and/or monthly fee.

weight breed restrictions and require and/ora monthly fee. The or most common unit amenities area adeposit dishwasher, patio or balcony, and a washer/dryer connection. At least 14 properties provide a washer and dryer in the unit; over 25 have on-site laundry facilities. The most common unit amenities are a dishwasher, a patio or balcony, and a washer/dryer connection.

The most common unit amenities are a dishwasher, a patio or balcony, and a washer/dryer connection. At least 14 properties provide a washer and dryer in the tional monthly fee. Over 15 properties have fitness facilities. While not as common, about 25% have a Covered parking moston-site common community amenity, although many properties charge an addiunit; over is 25thehave laundry facilities. At least 14 properties a washer andcommunity dryer in theamenity, unit; over 25 have many on-siteproperties laundry facilities. Covered parking isprovide the most common although charge an addi-

swimming pool and/or clubhouse. Few of these properties have other recreational facilities such as playtional monthly fee. Over 15 properties have fitness facilities. While not as common, about 25% have a Covered parking is the mostcourts, common community amenity, although many properties grounds, basketball courts, tennis or volleyball courts. swimming pool and/or clubhouse. Few of these properties have other recreational facilities such as play-

charge an additional monthly fee. Over 15 properties have fitness facilities. While not as common, about 25% have a swimming pool and/or clubhouse. Few of these properties have other recreational facilities such as play-grounds, basketball courts, tennis courts, or volleyball courts.

grounds, basketball courts, tennis courts, or volleyball courts.

Page 22 Page 22

AND ER SON STR ICPLAN KLER41 , LL C UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

Seventy percent of survey respondents live off campus. Of the 70% who live off campus, 52% rent their own housing. Of the 52% who rent their own housing: • 58% rent an apartment (47% in an apartment building/complex; 11% in a converted house with more than one unit), 24% rent a house, 10% live in fraternity or sorority housing, 7% rent a room in a house, and 1% have other housing arrangements. • 17% live alone while 33% live with one other person, 15% with two others, 10% with three others, and the remaining 25% with more than three others. • Out of 626 respondents who rent housing, the largest single group lives with roommates (420), while 117 live alone, 166 live with their spouse, 28 with their children, and 138 live with their parents or other relatives and pay rent. • 23% of renters live in one-bedroom units, 28% live in two-bedroom units, 13% in three-bedroom units, 10% in four-bedroom units, and 23% in units with more than four bedrooms. • One quarter do not share a bathroom with other residents; 58% share at most with one other, while 17% share with more than two people. • Most renters have a bedroom to themselves (65%), 18% share with a spouse or child, and 17% share with a roommate. The 17% who share a bedroom with a roommate is larger than the 10% median of students sharing bedrooms ASL has seen at institutions nationwide. When asked why students share a bedroom, most just wanted to live with friends (48), or wanted to pay lower rent (40), or could not find housing with a private bedroom (16). • Only 13% rent their unit furnished, while 74% rent their unit unfurnished and 13% rent their unit partially furnished. • The largest percentage of renters have twelve-month leases (54%), while 15% have month-to-month leases, 12% have academic year leases, 5% have a sixmonth lease, 5% sign a lease each quarter, and 9% have some other type of lease agreement. Off-campus survey respondents who previously lived in university housing were asked to choose all of the reasons why they moved off campus from a list provided. The top three reasons students move off campus are the need for more space, the high cost of campus food, and the ability to cook their own meals. Also of note are the desire for a more independent lifestyle, preference for a private bedroom, and the belief that university housing is too expensive.

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Where Students Live

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Needed more space

167

High cost of food

162 160

Ability to cook own meals 147

Wanted a more independent lifestyle 138

Preference for private bedroom 128

UW housing is too expensive Did not like the meal plan requirement

101

Preference for private/semi-private bath

My friends were moving off campus

99 95

Did not like the quality of the food Rules, regulations, policies

The age/general condition of facilities

Lack of individual temperature control

Cleanliness of community bathrooms

Alcohol restrictions

Figure 17: Reasons Students Move Campus Figure 17: Reasons Students Move OffOff Campus

Students living off campus were to provide their ZIP Code for their the autumn 2006 The ZIP Students living offasked campus were asked to provide ZIP Code forquarter. the autumn 2006 codes are illustrated the highest density in dark green. thehighest color changes quarter.below The with ZIP codes are illustrated below withAsthe densitytoinlighter dark shades green. of green and As finally the number of residences is marked in red. of The the white, color changes to lighter shadesdecreases. of greenThe andUniversity finally white, the number

OFF-CAMPUS MARKET respondents live near the University in ZIP Code 98105 (323 map below shows that most off-campus residences decreases. The map below shows that most off-campus respondents live UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

respondents).near the University in ZIP Code 98105 (323 respondents).

Illustration 1: Respondents by ZIP Code Illustration 1:Off-Campus Off-Campus Respondents by ZIP Code

Page 24

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND DEVELOPING A HOUSING ER SON STR ICSTRATEGIC KLER , PLAN LL C 43

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

LIVING PREFERENCES

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALY

LIVING PREFERENCES

Market Report • Living Preferences

Improvements Survey respondents provided the five most important areas for improvement in the Improvements

housing facilities, the housing amenities, and student services. Students selected Survey respondents provided the five most important areas for improvement in the housing facilit from a list of 15 improvements for facilities and the score was weighted. The top ten the housing amenities, and student services. Students selected from a list of 15 improvements for fac improvements are listed in Figure 18, divided by respondents who live in university ties and the score was weighted. The top ten improvements are listed in Figure 18, divided by resp housing and respondents who live off campus. For those living in university housing, dents who live in university housing and respondents who live off campus. For those living in univer larger bedrooms, sound insulation, temperature control, faster/reliable Internet housing, larger bedrooms, sound insulation, temperature control, faster/reliable Internet connectio connections, and improved lighting are the five most important improvements the and improved lighting are the five most important improvements the University could make to exist University could make to existing housing. Those students living off campus indicate housing. Those bedrooms, students living off bedrooms, campus indicate that larger space, bedrooms, private bedrooms, perso that larger private personal storage sound insulation, storage sound insulation, and faster/reliable connection are most important. Inter andspace, faster/reliable Internet connection are most Internet important. Interestingly, a private

Off Campus (n=837)

University Housing (n=353)

ingly, a private bedroom ninth for those livinghousing, in university housing, bedroom ranked ninthranked for those students livingstudents in university indicating that indicating t moremore space is desirable, but a roommate is acceptable. space is desirable, but a roommate is acceptable. Larger bedrooms Sound insulation Individual room temperature controls Faster/more reliable Internet connection Improved lighting Adequate #/location of electrical outlets Updated community bathroom Personal storage space Private bedroom Carpet in bedroom Larger bedrooms Private bedroom Personal storage space Sound insulation Faster/more reliable Internet connection Updated community bathroom Improved furnishings Adequate #/location of electrical outlets Improved lighting Individual room temperature controls 0

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400

Weighted Score (Most Important=5, 2nd=4, 3rd=3, 4th=2, 5th=1)

Figure 18:Most Most Important Facility Improvements Figure 18: Important Facility Improvements

Providing washers and dryers on every floor is a desirable improvement for all students whether t Providing washers and dryers on every floor is a desirable improvement for all are currently living in university housing or living off campus. Those living in university housing a students whether they are currently living in university housing or living off campus. believe thatliving a lateinnight food housing spot or coffee shop, athat community kitchen, convenience store, and a Those university also believe a late night food aspot or nesscoffee or weight room are important amenities. Studentsstore, livingand off acampus many of the same shop, a community kitchen, a convenience fitness share or weight liefs,room ranking kitchen, late night living food spot or coffeeshare shop,many fitness are community important amenities. Students off campus of or theweight same room, and a

cial lounge television lounge as being important The top ten beliefs,orranking community kitchen, late night amenity food spotimprovements. or coffee shop, fitness or answers for e weight room,inand a social group are shown Figure 19. lounge or television lounge as being important amenity improvements. The top ten answers for each group are shown in Figure 19.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

Page 26

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL

LIVING PREFERENCES PREFERENCES LIVING

Off OffCampus Campus(n=837) (n=837)

University UniversityHousing Housing(n=353) (n=353)

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS Washers/dryers on every floor Washers/dryers on every floor Late night food spot/coffee shop Late night food spot/coffee shop Community kitchen Community kitchen Convenience store Convenience store Fitness or weight room Fitness or weight room Swimming pool Swimming pool Social/TV lounge Social/TV lounge Community laundry laundry facility facility Community Study lounge Study lounge Game room room(ping (ping pong, pong, pool pooltable, table,etc.) etc.) Game Washers/dryers on on every every floor floor Washers/dryers Community kitchen kitchen Community Late night night food food spot/coffee spot/coffeeshop shop Late Fitness or weight room Fitness or weight room Social/TV lounge lounge Social/TV Study lounge Study lounge Computer lab lab Computer Conveniencestore store Convenience Community laundry laundry facility facility Community Game room room(ping (ping pong, pong, pool pooltable, table,etc.) etc.) Game 00

300 300

600 600

900 900

1200 1500 1500 1800 1800 1200

WeightedScore Score Weighted (MostImportant=5, Important=5,2nd=4, 2nd=4,3rd=3, 3rd=3,4th=2, 4th=2,5th=1 5th=1 (Most ))

Figure 19: Most MostImportant Important Amenity Improvements Figure 19: Amenity Improvements Figure 19: Most Important Amenity Improvements

Off Campus Campus (n=837) (n=837) Off

University Housing (n=353)

When asked about programs and services available in residence halls,respondents, survey When asked about programs and services services available inresidence residence halls,survey survey whetherlivlivprograms and available in halls, respondents, whether respondents, whether living in university housing or off campus ranked their top ten housing or or off off campus campus ranked ranked their their top top ten ten preferences preferencesvery verysimilarly, similarly,the thetop topthree three ing in university housing preferences very similarly, the top three being the ability to live in a living/learning being the ability to to live live in in aa living/learning living/learning community, community, opportunities opportunitiesfor forsocial socialinteraction interactionwith withother other community, opportunities for social interaction with other residents, and living near living near near others others with with similar similarinterests. interests.The Thetop topten tenpreferences preferencesare areshown shownininFigure Figure20 20. . residents, and living others with similar interests. The top ten preferences are shown in Figure 20. Live in in aa living/learning living/learningcomm comm Live Opps. for for social socialinteraction interaction w/ w/ other other residents residents Opps. Live near near others others w/ w/ similar similar interests/hobbies interests/hobbies Live Live near near those those in in same sameacademic academicyear year Live In-hallacademic academic advising advising In-hall Off-campus activities/field activities/fieldtrips trips w/ w/residents residents Off-campus In-hall In-halltutoring tutoringservices services Opps. Opps. to to interact interact w/ w/ faculty faculty outside outsideof ofclass class In-hall In-hallreview reviewsessions sessions Programs Programs to to develop developleadership leadershipskills skills Opps. Opps. for for social socialinteraction interaction w/ w/ other other residents residents Live Live in in aa living/learning living/learningcomm comm Live Live near near others others w/ w/ similar similar interests/hobbies interests/hobbies Live Live near near those those in in same sameacademic academicyear year Off-campus Off-campus activities/field activities/fieldtrips trips w/ w/residents residents In-hall In-halltutoring tutoringservices services In-hall In-hallacademic academic advising advising Opps. Opps. to to interact interact w/ w/ faculty faculty outside outsideof ofclass class In-hall In-hallreview reviewsessions sessions Programs Programs to to develop developleadership leadershipskills skills 00

400 800 1200 1600 400 800 1200 1600 Weighted WeightedScore Score (Most (MostImportant=5, Important=5,2nd=4, 2nd=4,3rd=3, 3rd=3,4th=2, 4th=2,5th=1) 5th=1)

Figure 20: Most Important Programs and Services Figure Figure 20: 20: Most Most Important Important Programs Programsand andServices Services 46

Page Page 27 27

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

AND ANDER ERSON SON STR STRIC ICKLER KLER, ,LL LLCC

LIVING PREFERENCES UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Students experience different housing needs over the course of their tenure at a Unit Preferences Unit Preferences campus. different Studentshousing indi-cated which types of were appropriate forStudents each year Students experience needs over unit the course theirmost tenure at a campus. indi-

study. Results, shown in Figurefor 21, indi-cate that 61% of respondents believe cated whichofunit types were most appropriate each year of study. Results, shown in Figure 21, indithatofarespondents unit in traditional residence halltraditional (bedroomresidence with a community bathroom) is cate that 61% believe that a unit in hall (bedroom with a commu-

most isappropriate for freshmen. Sophomore residency is less specific, withwith a fairly nity bathroom) most appropriate for freshmen. Sophomore residency is less specific, a fairly

even for a (multiple suite/cluster (multiple sharing bathroom and living(muleven response forresponse a suite/cluster rooms sharing rooms a bathroom andaliving area), semi-suite area), semi-suite (multipleand bedrooms sharing and a traditional unit. tiple bedrooms sharing a bathroom), a traditional unit.aAsbathroom), a student matures, respondents believe

As a student of matures, believe that the appropriateness living ingreater. an that the appropriateness living inrespondents an apartment (with living area and full kitchen)ofbecomes (with21. living area and full kitchen) becomes greater. Results are shown in Results are apartment shown in Figure Figure 21.

19% 8%

14%

Apartment 44%

29%

56%

51%

Suite or Cluster Semi-suite

61%

24%

9% 6%

Freshman

Sophomore

16% Junior

Traditional room

11% 45% 26%

Senior

Live off campus on his/her own Live at home

Grad/Prof

Figure 21: Unit Type Figure 21: Most MostAppropriate Appropriate Unit Type

The student survey featured eight unit plans that were tested at estimated per-person rents. Students

The student survey featured eight unit plans that were tested at estimated per-person rents. Students ranked each option as “preferred,” “acceptable,’’ or “would not live tested are shown in Table 8. The rents assume that all units are furnished and that rents include utilithere.” The rates and floor plans tested are shown in Table 8. The rents assume that ties, Internet access, cable television, and local telephone service. Rents also assume a 10-month acaall units are furnished and that rents include utilities, Internet access, cable television, demic-year lease14 and do not include a meal plan. To assist with the identification of unit types, ASL and local telephone service. Rents also assume a 10-month academic-year lease considers those highlighted in green to be traditional student housing, blue to be suite-style housing and do not include a meal plan. To assist with the identification of unit types, ASL (with living area), and yellow to be apartment-style housing (with living area and full kitchen). considers those highlighted in green to be traditional student housing, blue to be suite-style housing (with living area), and yellow to be apartment-style housing (with living area and full kitchen). ranked each option as “preferred,” “acceptable,’’ or “would not live there.” The rates and floor plans

14 Students were asked if they would prefer a 12-month lease at an additional charge; 69% would prefer an academic year lease and 31% would prefer a 12-month lease.

Page 28

AND ER SON STRSTRATEGIC IC KLERPLAN , LL C47 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING

LIVING PREFERENCES UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

TRADITIONAL DOUBLE BEDROOM

TWO DOUBLE BEDROOM SEMI-SUITE

Rent per person: $5,150 Rent per person: $5,800 TWO-DOUBLE BEDROOM SUITE

TWO SINGLE BEDROOM SEMI-SUITE

Rent per person: $6,050

Rent per person: $6,250

FOUR SINGLE BEDROOM SUITE

FOUR SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT

Rent per person: $6,700

Rent per person: $7,500

TWO SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT

STUDIO APARTMENT

Rent per person: $8,950

Rent per person: $8,600

Table 8: and Tested Rents Table 8:Floor FloorPlans Plans and Tested Rents

Page 29

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

LIVING PREFERENCES LIVING PREFERENCES

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Of the eight unit configurations that were tested in the student survey, the largest percentage of respondents (15%) statedtested that theytheprefer a four-single apartment Of configurations the eight unit configurations that student survey, the largest percentage of respon Of the eight unit that were tested in were the student in survey, the largest percentage of responover the other units tested, with another 51% finding the unit acceptable (if their dentsthat (15%) stated that they preferapartment a four-single apartment otherwith units tested,51% with another 51% dents (15%) stated they prefer a four-single over the other over unitsthe tested, another first choice option was not(ifavailable). However when “preferred” and “acceptable” finding the unit acceptable their first choice option was not available). However when “preferred” an finding the unit acceptable (if their first choice option was not available). However when “preferred” and responses are added together, a more traditional unit type the two-single bedroom “acceptable” are added together, a more traditional type - the two-single bedroom sem “acceptable” responses are responses added together, a more traditional unit type - theunit two-single bedroom semisemi-suite - is favored. Figure 23 shows survey response to preference the unit preference suite is favored. Figure 23 shows survey response to the unit question for all suite - is favored. Figure 23 shows survey response to the unit preference question for all respondents responden question for all respondents (students living in university housing and off campus). (students living in university housing and off campus). (students living in university housing and off campus).

Preferred Acceptable 45%

Preferred Studio Apt 10% 45% 10%

Studio Apt

2-SGL 10% BR Apt 4-SGL 15%BR Apt

2-SGL BR Apt 4-SGL BR Apt

4-SGL BR Suite 4-SGL 6% BR Suite 2-DBL BR Suite 2-DBL 10%BR Suite 2-SGL BR Semi-Suite 2-SGL BR Semi-Suite 12% 2-DBL BR 2-DBL BR Semi-Suite 6%Semi-Suite 6%DBL Room Trad DBL RoomTrad

10%

6% 10%

50%

15%

6% 44%

57%

34%

36%

34%

56%

62%

26%

55%

40%

40% 51%

51%

12% 6%

Acceptable Would not live there Would not live there 45% 45%

39%

44%

51%

Figure 22: Unit UnitPreference Preference Survey Respondents Figure 22: forfor All All Survey Respondents Figure 22: Unit Preference for All Survey Respondents

Figure 23 shows unitdivided preferences divided housing by university housingand respondents and off-campus respon Figure 23 shows unit by university respondents off-campus responFigure 23preferences shows unit preferences divided by university housing respondents and offdents. dents.

campus respondents.

Studio Apt University Housing

4-SGL 17%BR Apt 4-SGL 4-SGL BR Suite 5% BR Suite 2-SGL BR11% Semi-Suite 2-SGL BR Semi-Suite BR Suite 2-DBL BR Suite 2-DBL 16% 2-DBL BR8% Semi-Suite 2-DBL BR Semi-Suite Trad DBL RoomTrad9%DBL Room Studio Apt Studio Apt 12%

17% 5%

52%

52% 63%

63%

11% 16% 8%

31%

32%

65%

24%

61%

24%

66%

26%

54%

37%

54% 12%44% 10% 49%

44%

49%

41%

4-SGL BR Suite 4-SGL 7% BR Suite 2-SGL BR12% Semi-Suite 2-SGL BR Semi-Suite

14% 50% 7% 54% 12% 60%

54%

2-DBL BR Suite 2-DBL 7% BR Suite 2-DBL BR 2-DBL BR Semi-Suite 5%Semi-Suite

7% 54% 5%50%

Off-Campus Respondents

Preferred Acceptable Would not live there Acceptable Would not live there 47% 47% 6%47% 47% 37% 54% 9% 54% 37%

4-SGL BR Apt Respondents

Respondents

University Housing

2-SGL BR Apt

Preferred 6%Studio Apt 2-SGL 9% BR Apt

2-SGL BR Apt 4-SGL BR Apt

2-SGL 10% BR Apt 4-SGL 14% BR Apt

4% 4% DBL Room 39% Trad DBL RoomTrad

50%

36%

39%

60%

28%

54%

39%

50% 39%

36%

45%

45% 57%

57%

Figure 23: Unit Preference for University Housing Respondents and Off-Campus Respondents Figure forfor University Housing Respondents and Off-Campus Respondents Figure23: 23:Unit UnitPreference Preference University Housing Respondents and Off-Campus Respondents

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

Page 30

AND ERIC SON STR ICCKLER , LL C AND ER SON STR KLER , LL

LIVING PREFERENCES UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

LIVING PREFERENCES

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS If the student housing options in the survey had been available to the respondents for If the student housing options in the survey had been available to the respondents for autumn 2006

autumn 2006 when they were choosing their housing for the academic year, 22% of

when they were choosing their housing for the academic year, 22% of the respondents indicated they thestudent respondents indicated they have definitely livedtothere and 32% indicated If the housing options in thewould survey had been available thelived respondents for autumn 2006 would have definitely lived there and 32% indicated they might have there. Figure 24 separates

they might livedtheir there. Figurefor 24the separates for university housing and off- they when werehave choosing housing academicresults year, 22% of the respondents indicated resultsthey for university housing and off-campus respondents. campus respondents. would have definitely lived there and 32% indicated they might have lived there. Figure 24 separates results for university housing and off-campus respondents. 7% 7% 40%

41%

40%

41% 21%

50%

21% 28%

50%

10% 28%

University Housing

Off 10% Campus

Would not have lived there

30%

Would not have lived Probably would not have there lived there (less than a 50/50 chance) Probably would not have Mightthere have (less lived than therea lived (50/50 chance) 50/50 chance)

30% 17% 17% 32% 32% 22%

Might have lived there Definitely would have lived (50/50 chance) there

22% Total

Definitely would have lived there

Figure 24:Interest Interest Housing Campus, Figure 24: in in Housing on Campus, Fall Fall 20062006 University Housing Offon Campus Total

Those who were not interested in the proposed housing selected all of the reasons they were not interFigure 24: Interest in Housing on Campus, Fall 2006

Those who respondents were not interested the proposed selected all of the reasons ested. Overall, cited the in housing being toohousing expensive. Other high-ranking reasons include Those who were not interested in the proposed housing selected all of the reasons they were interwereannot interested. Overall, cited from the housing being situation, too expensive. not they wanting assigned roommate, notrespondents wanting to move current living andnot concern ested. Overall, cited being toofor expensive. Other high-ranking reasons include 15 Other high-ranking reasons include notresponses wanting an assigned roommate, not wanting about rules andrespondents regulations. Figurethe 25housing shows all reasons listed in the survey. not to wanting an assigned roommate, not wanting to move from current living situation, and concern move from current living situation, and concern about rules and regulations. Figure about andresponses regulations. 25 shows responses all reasons listed in the survey.15 25rules shows forFigure all reasons listed in the for survey. 94

Housing is too expensive

366

Live with my spouse/children 94 126 Housing is too expensive 8 Live with my parents 89 10 Live with my spouse/children 126 3 Prefer to live in Greek housing 68 8 Live with my parents 89 32 Prefer existing housing offerings 154 3 Prefer to live in Greek housing 68 63 Do not want assigned roommate 32 Prefer existing housing offerings 154 36 Want to live alone 103 63 Do not want assigned roommate 18 Do not want to move 165 36 Want to live alone 103 41 Concern about the level of rules/regs 159 18 Do not want to move 165 10 65 Already own a home 41 Concern about the level of rules/regs 159 Figure 25: Reasons for Lack of Interest 10 in Proposed Housing 65 Already own a home

366

319 319 University Housing Off Campus University Housing Off Campus

Figure 25: Lack of of Interest in Proposed Housing Figure 25: Reasons Reasonsfor for Lack Interest in Proposed Housing

15 Survey respondents who indicated that they would not live in campus housing were permitted to select more than one reason from a pre-printed list. Respondents could also select “other” and write in a reason. 15 Survey respondents who indicated that they would not live in campus housing were permitted to select more than one reason from a EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS COMPANY pre-printed list. Respondents could also select “other”+and write in a reason. Page5031 HANBURY AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

Page 31

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL C

DEMAND ANALYSIS DEMAND UNIVERSITY OF ANALYSIS WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSI Market Report • Demand Analysis

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSI

DEMAND ANALYSIS on the results of the survey, ASL analyzed demand to estimate the number Autumn 2006 Demand Based DEMAND ANALYSIS Autumn 2006 Demand

and types of units de-sired by students. Based on sample size of the response to the Autumn 2006of Demand Based the on the results the survey, analyzed demandlevel to estimate the number and in types survey, confidence interval at ASL a 95% confidence is ±3.36%, resulting the of units d sired for by Based on sample size2,724 of the and response totothe survey, thenumber confidence interval at a 95 Based onstudents. the results of the ASL analyzed demand estimate the and types of units d range unmet demand ofsurvey, between 4,105 beds of housing from full-time 16 is ±3.36%, resulting in the range for unmet demand of between 2,724 and 4,105 be confidence level sired by students. Based sample size of the response to the survey, the 9 confidence interval at a 95 off-campus students. The on mid-point of the range is 3,414 beds. Table sum-marizes of housingoffrom off-campus The mid-point of theliving range is 3,414 beds. Table 9 sum confidence level is ±3.36%, resulting infull-time the range for unmet demand of between 2,724 and 4,105 be the results the 16full-time demand analysis forstudents. students currently off campus by marizes the results of the demand analysis for full-time students currently living off campus by class. of housing from full-time off-campus students. The mid-point of the range is 3,414 beds. Table 9 sum class. marizes the results of the demand analysis for full-time students currently living off campus by class. Autumn 2006

Full-time Off-Campus Full-time Enrollment Off-Campus 2,624 Enrollment 3,798 2,624

Autumn 2006 Class Freshman Class Sophomore Freshman Junior Sophomore

Senior Junior Graduate student Senior

Professional student Graduate student

Definitely Interested Capture 50% Definitely Interested Rate Closure Capture 50% 23% 305 Rate Closure 12% 23% 9% 12%

6,076 3,798 6,617 6,076 6,916 6,617

11% 9% 6% 11%

1,368 6,916 27,399 1,368

7% 6%

Professional student 7% Table 9: Demand, Autumn 2006 Table 9: Potential Potential Demand, Autumn 2006 27,399

Might Be Interested Capture 25% Might Be Interested Rate Closure Capture 25% 39% 258 Rate Closure

Potential Demand Potential 562 Demand 660 562

235 305 262 235

45% 39% 32% 45%

425 258 480 425

49 223 1,440 49

24% 23%

83 393 1,974 83

3,414 132

1,974

3,414

368 262 223 368

20% 32% 23% 20% 24%

1,440

335 480 393 335

741 660 703 741 616 703 132 616

Table 9: Potential Demand, Autumn 2006

ordertotodistribute distributethe thedemand demand for for housing housing among InIn order amongthe thetested testedunit unittypes, types,ASL ASLused the unit prefe 17 Table 10 show ences from full-time off-campus students showing interest in the proposed housing. In order to distribute the from demand for housing among the tested unit types, ASLinused unit prefe used the unit preferences full-time off-campus students showing interest the the 17 Table the demand for each unit and room type at tested rents for those students currently living off campu ences from full-time off-campus students showing interest in the proposed housing. 10 show proposed housing. Table 10 shows the demand for each unit and room type at This table does not take into consideration unit preferences of those students living on campus and the demand forthose each unit and room typeliving at tested for those students currently living off campu tested rents for students currently off rents campus. This table does not take does not include “acceptable” percentages. This table does not takepreferences into unit consideration preferences students onnot campus and into consideration unit of thoseunit students living ofonthose campus and living it does does not include “acceptable” unit percentages. include “acceptable” unit percentages. Unit Type Unit Type Traditional Double Room Two-Double-Bedroom Semi-Suite Traditional Double Room Two-Single-Bedroom Semi-Suite Two-Double-Bedroom Semi-Suite Two-Double-BedroomSemi-Suite Suite Two-Single-Bedroom Four-Single-Bedroom Two-Double-BedroomSuite Suite Four-Single-Bedroom Apartment Four-Single-Bedroom Suite Two-Single-Bedroom Four-Single-Bedroom Apartment Apartment Studio Apartment Two-Single-Bedroom Apartment Total Studio Apartment

Rent/AY $5,150 Rent/AY $5,800 $5,150 $6,250 $5,800 $6,050 $6,250 $6,700 $6,050 $7,500 $6,700 $8,950 $7,500 $8,600 $8,950 $8,600

Table 10: Demand by Unit Preference Total

OFF Campus & Interested Student OFF Campus & Preference Interested Student 7% Preference 8% 7%

Incremental Demand Incremental 225 Demand 268 225

20% 8% 10% 20% 8% 10%

676 268 344 676 290 344

15% 8% 18% 15% 14% 18%

505 290 612 505 494 612

100% 14%

3,414 494

100%

3,414

Table 10: Preference Table 10: Demand Demandby byUnit Unit Preference 16 The plus-or-minus figure seen in many survey or poll results, for example, if the confidence interval is 3% and 50% percent of the

sample picks an answer; it is 95% certain that if the entire population had been asked the same question, between 47% (50%-3%) an

16 The plus-or-minus figure seen in many survey or poll results, for in example, if the confidence 3% confidence and 50%interval percent of and the 50% percent of the 53% (50%+3%) would have seen picked that answer. The plus-or-minus figure many survey or poll results, forinterval example,isif the is 3% samplethat picksifan answer; is 95% certainhad that been if the entire been asked the same 47% question, between 47% (50%-3%) an sample picks an answer; it is 95% certain the entireit population askedpopulation the samehad question, between (50% 3%) and 53% answer. (50%+3%) would have picked that answer. 53% (50%+3%) would have picked that 17 Demand by unit preference includes only those from Table 9 (50% closure rate from students who said they would definitely live Demand by unit preference includes only housing those from Table 9 (50% closure ratesaid from who said they would definitely live campus and 25% closure rate of those who theystudents might live in campus housing) if their preferred unitintype had been ava 17 able thembywho atunit the said start of the includes fall 2006 semester. Demand preference only from Table 9 (50% closure rate from students said they would campus housing and 25% closure rate oftothose they might live inthose campus housing) if their preferred unit typewho had been avail- definitely live campus housing and 25% closure rate of those who said they might live in campus housing) if their preferred unit type had been ava able to them at the start of the fall 2006 semester.

able to them at the start of the fall 2006 semester.

Page 32

AND ER SON STR IC KLER , LL

Page 32

AND ERSTRATEGIC SON STR , LL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING PLANIC KLER 51

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

DEMAND ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS

Additional Demand Students who stated they were not interested in living in the proposed housing

Additional Demand

because the rent was too high were given the chance to review the floor plans again with rates that were 5-6% lower. If the housing was still too expensive, the students high were given the chance to review the floor plans again with rates that were 5-6% lower. If the houswere asked to respond a last time with reduced rents of 5-6%. The results yielded ing was still too expensive, the students were asked to respond a last time with reduced rents of 5-6%. demand for an additional 1,703 beds for a total of 5,117 as shown in Table 11.

Students who stated they were not interested in living in the proposed housing because the rent was too

The results yielded demand for an additional 1,703 beds for a total of 5,117 as shown in Table 11.

Incremental Demand

Additional Demand Rent Level #2

Additional Demand Rent Level #3

Total Potential Incremental Demand

Freshman

562

152

750

Sophomore

660

217

950

Class

Junior

741

313

124

1,177

Senior

703

378

108

1,189

Professional student

616

148

111

876

Non-matriculated student

132

176

3,414

1,233

470

5,117

Total Table 11: Additional Demand Table 11: Additional Demand

Conclusion The results the survey indicate the University of Washington should move Conclusion The results of theofsurvey indicate that thethat University of Washington should move ahead with confidence ahead with confidence planning additional student housing. The incremental in planning additional studentinhousing. The incremental demand from off-campus students does not demand from off-campus studentscould doesbenot include current and decide therefore include current overflow and therefore understated should overflow the University to return exbetounderstated the University decide to return existing theirlevel of inistingcould rooms their design should capacity. Students currently living on campus alsorooms show atohigh design living on will campus alsointo show a high level terest in the capacity. tested unitsStudents and theircurrently living preferences be taken consideration as of theinteam evaluin the options tested units and their livingand preferences be taken into consideration ates terest new housing as well as demolition renovationwill options for existing housing. as the team evaluates new housing options as well as demolition and renovation options for existing housing.

Page 33

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING AND ER SONSTRATEGIC STR ICPLAN KLER53 , LL C

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

IDEAL HOUSING SYSTEM

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Aspirational Analysis

Hanbury Evans conducted an Internet based aspirational analysis survery to determine the perceptions of and aspirations for student housing both now and in the future. The survey was used as a quick assessment to validate or challenge current thinking among a cross section of the University’s faculty and staff with the goal of determining whether or not alignment existed among those within the HFS staff and those outside of it. It was intended to highlite both agreement as well as any inconsistencies in a broad spectrum of topics relative to HFS including: • Image - reputation; what Residence Services is known for • Value - both to students and the University as a recruiting tool • Promotion - marketing of student residence • Leadership - who provides the vision, direction and management • Conversation - what goals, aspects of programming are emphasized • Facilities - what physical characteristics are exemplified • Success - how is it determined • Investment - what is the target; where do we spend our capital • Social - primary modes of socialization • Price - basis of value to students • Organization - operations vs. programming

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IDEAL HOUSING SYSTEM

Survey respondents were asked to identify themselves as belonging to one of three categories: executive staff, HFS staff and other. This was done so that the results could be understood with regard to each group’s priorities and perspective. Individual answers were tabulated into a matrix segregated into current and future and categorized into two potential modes: residence as Service (Customer + Business) and residence as Ideas (Program + Identity). The Service model can be understood within three categories of priority: • Providers - HFS as provider of beds • Service Leaders - HFS providing exemplary service • Growth/System - HFS can provide housing to students throughout their academic experience The Ideas model can be understood within three categories of priority: • Community Builders - HFS is focused on building student communities and lasting relationships • Theme - HFS provides a variety of theme housing opportunities • Campus Identity - HFS is recognized as integral to the reputation of the University The survey found that there is significant alignment with regard to the current state of Housing & Food Services as a customer driven business with a reputation for building strong student communities. With regard to the future status each group had a unique perspective: • Those identifying themselves as being within HFS seemed to be in agreement that investment and planning needed to focus on being a service leader with a strong themed based approach • Those identifying themselves as being outside HFS indicated a strong preference for student housing to be linked with the University’s identity, with investment in continuing to build student communities around academic themes

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Ideal Residential Model Summary The ideal residential model for the University of Washington organizes the campus into identifiable neighborhoods. The Plan recommends strengthening existing residence hall neighborhoods on the North Campus through renovation and better utilization of building common spaces while on the West Campus proposing a new student residential neighborhood that reserves the first floor of each building for program space to support student residents as well as providing space for retail use and/or office space needed by the University. It is expected that Lander Terry Hall will remain and be renovated to serve first and second year students and that a retail market will be added at the southeast end of the Lander Hall wing to server the broader neighborhood that will include Stevens Court and Stevens Court Addition. The ideal residential model reflects the Live, Learn, and Link model being used by the Department of Housing & Food Service. These attributes are defined and balanced with the ability of the University to meet the needs of its student sub-markets, to be responsive to projected enrollment growth, to be informed by current and forecasted trends in student housing and ultimately to be framed by the University’s signature strengths, campus fabric and mission. The residential communities are defined by their response to the needs of the individual student, the residential community and their connections to the broader campus. The University of Washington’s goal to create a four-year campus focuses on the needs of each student market. In focus groups and open campus meetings, students identified which housing offerings contributed to both their attraction to and their retention at the University. To meet the diverse needs of its student groups, new housing offerings will focus on providing options that include expanding the undergraduate experience allowing students to “grow through the system,” provide affordable, intentional and desirable choices for entering freshmen, transfer students, upperclassmen, and graduates.

L I V E Residential communities should be supportive and reflective of the academic mission of the University. Program models reflect the desires of each student sub-market for connection to each other and the broader campus community. Unit types balance programmatic goals with student expectation for individual privacy and communal living. Resident Assistant (RA) ratios reflect a graduated level of oversight with a lower ratio projected for 1st and 2nd year students (1:30) and a higher ratio for 3rd and 4th year students (1:60). The model also reflects the distribution of lounge and support space that facilitate residential program needs as well as student desire for social gathering.

L E A R N New housing facilities will provide multi-purpose classroom space as well as dedicated space for tutoring and advising. This includes spaces for individual and group study and technology support such as computer labs and printing centers. Additionally, as the University seeks to expand its world leadership in select academic areas, housing offerings can enhance and support this mission, particularly in the development of graduate housing for use in the recruitment of top students in these select fields. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IDEAL HOUSING SYSTEM

Physical and social environments provide the greatest opportunities for sense of place and individual community identity. Each neighborhood should be defined by its site characteristics. Community functions such as game rooms and theaters, markets and restaurants, civic spaces, lawns and plazas help to define social identity and distinct neighborhood ambience. The organization of the communities within each neighborhood, and the actual civic spaces they share should shape their identity. The planning principles for each neighborhood reflect a strong sense of community and identity with identifiable edges and centers, and an intentional network of connections and destinations.

L I N K

The community model programs are planning guides, understanding that assignable and non-assignable space may vary in final design. The goal of the programs is to outline an informed and reasonable range of space detail so that reliable site tests can be articulated for the next phase of development. The exterior space program is equally critical to the success of each neighborhood and the campus fabric. Each new residential neighborhood should:

Program Development

• Be identifiable communities, each with its own unique expression, • Populate and invigorate the existing campus connections and paths, and reinforce the campus’s unique landscape features. • Provide circulation space and organization of all residences and their relationship to each other to facilitate informal gatherings, chance encounters, contact between neighbors, and shall encourage resident interaction. • Create community, and support spaces in each building / community to serve the needs of the residents. However, the larger community activities, such as dining, computer lab use, etc., shall be visible, accessible, and centralized in neighborhood or regional centers to enhance the identity of the community, while at the same time, accessible and visible. • Have dedicated open space and outdoor rooms/ gathering spaces to balance the individual living needs of students with social opportunities, creating a spirit of collegiality. • Have strong campus connections. Neighborhoods shall be organized around the pedestrian campus experience and shall promote walking, bicycle riding and use of the transit system. • Respond to regional climate and shall protect and enhance the natural environment. • Have a unique design expression and complement the campus fabric through materials and landscape.

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Freshman/Sophomore

1 Quantity

ASF

Total ASF

Occupancy

300 10 Communities 10 RAs

#REF! Doubles 3,820 3,080 0 740

LIVE 000 001 002 003

Staff Living Units Double room with private bath (can be a large single) Single room with private bath Studio / Two bedroom apartment

10 0 1

308 230 740

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Student Living Units Double room with hall bath (8:1 bath ratio) Single room with hall bath (8:1 bath ratio) 1 Double room with bath (2:1 bath ratio) 2 Single rooms with bath (2:1 bath ratio) Single room with private bath Suite Double - 2 double rms, bath, small living Suite Single - 4 single rms, bath, small living Apartment - 2 double rms, baths, living room, kitchen Apartment - 4 single rms, baths, living room, kitchen Apartment - 1 bedroom Apartment - 2 bedroom Townhouse Efficiency/Studio (single room with bath and kitchenette)

0 0 135 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

240 150 308 460 230 800 900 1,018 1,235 490 740 1575 347

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Building Community Lobby and gathering area (1 per building) Hall lounges (1 per floor w/TV and kitchette) Small group study (1 per community of 30) Public restrooms (1 per building adjacent to the lobby) Laundry (1 per building adjacent to café/lounge) Trash / recycle room (1 per building at ground floor) Trash / recycle room with adjacent chute room) Vending (adjacent to laundry room)

1 5 10 2 1 1 5 1

800 350 250 250 500 500 120 120

7,270 800 1,750 2,500 study - ground floor & typ. 500 500 500 600 120

300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308

Building Support Storage - Student Storage - Building Housekeeping Closets (1 per floor) Housekeeping Office (Every two buildings) Housing Break Room (Every two buildings) Housekeeping Supply Area (Every two buildings) Communications Closets (1 per floor) Bicyle Storage

0 1 6 1 1 1 6 1

350 400 60 150 140 150 100 460

1,800 0 400 360 150 140 150 600 460

48,480 0 0 41,580 0 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ASF

61,370

Program Efficiency Ratio GSF Range without Program Support Areas GSF / Bed w/o Program Support Areas

0.70 87,671 292

singles

RD Unit % Singles

0 0 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IDEAL HOUSING SYSTEM

Ideal Program Descriptions Junior/Senior/Graduate

1 Quantity

ASF

Total ASF

0 7 1

308 230 740

#REF! 2,350 0 1,610 740

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 20

Occupancy

LIVE 000 001 002 003

Staff Living Units Double room with private bath (can be a large single) Single room with private bath Studio / Two bedroom apartment

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

0 140

240 150 308 460 230 800 900 1,018 1,235 490 740 1575 347

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

1 0 0 2 0 1 5 1

400 350 250 250 500 500 120 120

2,120 400 0 0 500 0 in units 500 possible dumpster? 600 120

300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308

1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1

350 400 100 150 140 150 100 460

2,450 350 400 200 150 140 150 600 460

128,140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,360 49,400 9,800 0 48,580

Total ASF

132,710

Program Efficiency Ratio GSF Range without Program Support Areas GSF / Bed w/o Program Support Areas

0.74 179,338 448

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Doubles

singles

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 20

400

% Singles

0 140

Freshman/Sophomore

1 Quantity

ASF

Total ASF

Occupancy

300

Freshman/Sophomore Quantity

ASF

LEARN + LINK 400 Academic 401 Faculty Residence 402 Faculty Office 403 Classroom / multi-purpose (media equipped i.e. ABC rooms) 404 Special Identity Room (1 per building) 405 Tutorial / counseling office 406 Academic & Career Advising Office with shared conference room)

0 1 3 1 1 1

3,000 175 700 600 180 180

500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

240 350 500 600 1,000 700 200 120 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Civic Administrative Office (RD and RA office proximate) Copy, print area and workroom 24 hour desk, mail boxes, package storage (1 per region) Game room / recreation / night lounge Theater/multi media (2 on north campus - seating for 100) Multi - use space (fitness, dance, mtg, etc.) Community kitchen (for use by catering) Music practice module with piano Music practice modules Private Function Room (Kitchen, sofas, TV, Stereo Grocery/Market/Drug Store Banking Copy Center Theater (to be operated by HFS) Parking Deck Coffee Shop (Zolka) Pub with performance space Police station satellite office

Total ASF Comments #REF! 3,235 0 175 2,100 30 seminar style 600 180 180 1,330 480 350 500 600 1,000 700 200 120 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ASF

4,565

Program Efficiency Ratio GSF Range without Program Support Areas GSF / Bed

0.70 6,521 22

TOTAL GSF Target

94,193

GSF / Bed Target

300

314

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IDEAL HOUSING SYSTEM

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Junior/Senior/Graduate

1 Quantity

ASF

Total ASF

Occupancy

400

Junior/Senior/Graduate LEARN + LINK 400 Academic 401 Faculty Residence 402 Faculty Office 403 Classroom / multi-purpose (media equipped i.e. ABC rooms) 404 Special Identity Room (1 per building) 405 Tutorial / counseling office 406 Academic & Career Advising Office with shared conference room) 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519

Quantity

ASF

0 0 0 0 1

3,000 250 700 600 180 180

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

220 200 500 600 1,000 700 200 120 60 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ASF Occupancy #REF! by type singles 180 0 0 0 0 180 1,770 220 200 500 600 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ASF

1,950

Program Efficiency Ratio GSF Range without Program Support Areas GSF / Bed

0.70 2,786 7

TOTAL GSF Target GSF / Bed Target

400

182,124 455

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN

Illustration 1: View of Market on Campus Parkway East at First Floor of Lander Hall

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Scope Of Work In the Fall of 2006 the University of Washington Department of Housing & Food Service hired Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas + Company to lead a planning effort to reinvigorate student life and create a four-year campus residential experience. The process included: • An off-campus market analysis • A peer institution comparison and review of current trends • A web-based student housing preference survey • A demand projection, campus housing gap analysis and proposed market approach • The evaluation of existing student residence buildings • Development of ideal student housing program models • Site density testing for new student housing opportunities • Renovation concepts for existing residence halls • Analysis of the current financial operation of Housing & Food Services • Development of a 15-year HFS system economic model to accommodate operations, renovation and construction of new student housing In order to achieve this task Hanbury Evans conducted a series of planning charettes with a wide variety of constituent groups including faculty, staff and students in order to develop programming models that would meet expected housing demand and preferred styles. The Hanbury Evans team also included Anderson Strickler & Associates who conducted student focus groups, the on-line student residence survey, local market research and 15-year financial feasibility analysis. The planning effort evaluated new bed capacity of sites on both the north and west campuses. The resulting recommendations as approved by University Executive Leadership focused on five sites on the west campus and three future sites yet to be determined.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

In order to ensure alignment with the University’s planning efforts the Comprehensive Housing Master Plan (CHMP) has been coordinated with the 2003 Campus Master Plan (CMP). The CMP provides an overview of campus planning initiatives and identifies development sites and site parameters on the West Campus. It recommends that building heights on sites 30W, 32W, 33W and the west portion of site 35W be 105 feet and that the height of buildings on sites 29W/42W and the eastern half of site 35W be limited to 65 feet. It recommends that the first floor of buildings support a vibrant streetscape with uses such as offices, commercial, academic, housing, mixed use and parking. The CHMP respects the overall intent of the CMP indicating that future residential buildings align with established building setbacks; however, the plan modifies height limitations on some of the sites with the intention to both reduce potential construction costs but more importantly to maximize the potential of building more successful student communities. Some modification has resulted to specific site constraints to reflect the higher detail of the planning for specific sites. For example:

images: University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan: 2003

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Alignment With Campus Master Plan • Site 29W/42W – the CMP proposes housing with parking beneath on this site but with Mercer Hall to remain. The CHMP proposes that Mercer Hall be demolished so that a higher housing density can be achieved and that a maximum number of below grade parking spaces are possible. • Site 30W – the CMP proposes this site as an opportunity for a university gateway. The diagram on page 108 of the CMP indicates a potential overhead pedestrian connection with Condon Hall suggesting that the new building may be an academic use. The CHMP recommends that a public/private student apartment community venture be located on the site. The University should stipulate with their development partner the importance of this site as a gateway and work to develop an architectural style for the building that takes advantage of views both to and from the building. • Site 32W – the CMP recommends new construction on the site although not the specific use. The site diagram on page 108 of the CMP indicates that an existing tree is to be preserved. In order to maximize the potential for new beds on the site and the desire of HFS to locate its offices in the first floor the new buildings the CHMP recommends that the tree be removed. • Site 35W – the CMP anticipated the Cavalier Apartments remaining as a privately-owned building which would limit new construction and thus new bed potential to the east side of the site. The CHMP reflects the University’s desire to acquire the Cavalier Apartments site and then demolish the building to provide a contiguous site that would allow new student housing to define the entire block. • Site 39W – the CMP indicates that the existing parking lot on the east side of Henderson Hall will replaced with below grade parking with a green space on top (level with NE 40th Street. The CHMP indicates preserving the green space as an important community asset linking the southern housing sites to the sites along NE Campus Parkway. • Terry Lander Hall – the CMP indicates the intention for Terry Lander Hall to remain as a residence hall. The CHMP reflects the intent to add a retail market at the street level under the Lander Hall wing of the building. It is anticipated that the market will have doors on both NE 40th Street and on NE Campus Parkway. • The CHMP also recognizes the on-going opportunity for acquisition of sites in an around the west campus neighborhood. The financial pro forma anticipates that three additional sites will be developed in the vicinity of west campus.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

30W

32W

33W

Retail Market

35W

Neighborhood Commons 29/42W

Stevens Court

29/42W 656 apartment beds 30W 195 apartment beds 32W 488 residence hall beds 33W 250 residence hall beds 35W 481 residence hall beds Note: includes staff beds 72

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

West Campus Site Plan - Proposed

Land Use Implications west campus

35W

33W 32W

29/42W 30W

West Campus Site Perspective - Proposed

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

Site 29/42W Building Diagram entrance level floor plan UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - SITE 29

Entrance

Lounge

Entrance Commons

Lounge

Site 29 - Entrance Level RD Apt

LEGEND Support Community Space RA / Staff Double Student Room Single Student Room Four Person Apartment Two Person Apartment Retail Space Tenant Space

Location Plan Site 29/42W Building Diagram

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Site 29/42W Building Diagram typical floor plan

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

Site 30W Building Diagram ground floor plan

Location Plan Site 30W Building Diagram

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Site 30W Buildng Diagram typical floor plan

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

Site 32W Building Diagram ground floor plan

Location Plan Site 32W Building Diagram

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Site 32W Building Diagram typical floor plan

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

Illustration 2: View of Site 32W and 33W Looking East on Campus Parkway East

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Site 33W Building Diagram ground floor plan

Location Plan Site 33W Building Diagram

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Site 33W Building Diagram typical floor plan

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

Site 35W Building Diagram ground floor plan

Location Plan Site 35W Building Diagram

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Site 35W Building Diagram typical floor plan

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Unit Types SUITE UNIT A

RESIDENTIAL ROOM TYPES

Suite Units are student rooms that share private bathrooms but do not have a living space separate from the bedroom. The Suite provides for two occupants per room. The privacy allows a student and their roommate control of their own security, rather than sharing security with another pair through a shared bathroom. Each room is equipped with a toilet and shower and a sink placed outside the bathroom for ease of access when the bathroom is in use. This type of unit usually accommodates freshmen and sophomores, and is useful for adult conference attendees.

SEMI-SUITE UNIT Semi-Suite Units are student rooms that share private or semi-private bathrooms but do not

RESIDENTIAL ROOM TYPES

have a living space separate from the bedroom. The Double Semi-Suite provides for two occupants per room. Providing two adjacent bathrooms increases the number of plumbing fixtures and raises the construction costs. The privacy gained however, allows a student and their roommate control of their own security, rather than sharing security with another pair through a shared bathroom. Each room is equipped with a toilet and shower and a sink placed outside the bathroom for ease of access when the bathroom is in use. This type of unit usually accommodates freshmen and sophomores, and is useful for adult conference attendees.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

Efficiency Units are student rooms that share a private bathroom and have a small unit kitchen area. These units do not have a living space separate from the bedroom. The Efficiency provides for two occupants per room. The privacy allows a student and their roommate control of their own security, rather than sharing security with another pair through a shared bathroom. Each room is equipped with a toilet and shower and a sink placed outside the bathroom for ease of access when the bathroom is in use. This type of unit usually accommodates seniors and graduate students, and is useful for adult conference attendees.

EFFICIENCY UNIT

The Two Single Room Apartment provides two students with their own bedroom with a shared bathroom, living room and kitchen. The high degree of privacy and comfort of this unit and the Four Single Room Apartment opposite, are usually provided for upperclassmen and graduate students.

MODULAR 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

RESIDENTIAL ROOM TYPES

MODULAR 4 BEDROOM The Four Single Room Apartment provides four students each with their own bedroom with two APARTMENT shared bathrooms, living room and kitchen. RESIDENTIAL ROOM TYPES

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Financial Plan Over view The financial plan incorporates information gathered from the market analysis and ideal housing program development phases of the study. Being both strategic and comprehensive, the plan maximizes the improvements to student housing while maintaining acceptable rents. Careful control of rental rates and operating costs over time yields increased cash flows that can support additional debt. The use of debt to fund capital improvements maximizes the value that students receive for their rental dollar. At the core of the financial plan is an Excel financial model that simulates the financial operation of the student housing program. Starting in the current fiscal year, the model considers both the current housing program and planned improvements over the ensuing 10 to 15 years. The model and plan represent a framework for the operation of student housing that establishes benchmark revenue and operating cost targets for each year. The annual budgeting and planning cycle for operations and capital projects focuses on the details to achieve the benchmarks. The financial model for the recommended implementation plan is provided in in the Appendix. As a strategic plan, the financial assumptions represent long-term averages over the planning horizon. It is neither appropriate nor feasible to use worst-case assumptions that may be expected to occur during that period. The development program and phasing are based on the best information available at the time of the study. The University should anticipate that the plan will require adjustment on an annual basis to accommodate actual conditions that are not in line with projections, changing student preferences, and other factors external to student housing. Indeed, the success of the plan itself will likely have an impact on the students’ vision of and preference for on-campus housing in the future.

Summar y of Plan The University of Washington student housing financial plan demonstrates the feasibility of renovating existing residence halls and building new housing to increase the capacity of beds on campus from 5,895 to 8,112 by FY2021. The continued viability of this plan will depend largely on several factors: • A key assumption of the plan is that revenues can be increased at a faster rate than operating costs. If inflation drives costs too high to sustain this differential, it may be necessary to suspend the project schedule for a period until rents and operating costs can be brought into alignment. • The plan reflects hyperinflation of construction costs over the past several years; however, it does not assume that the rapid rate of increase will continue. If this trend does not slow or reverse itself, higher and higher construction costs will make housing less affordable to more students.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

The capital improvement program for student housing includes the construction of 1,673 residence hall double rooms with private baths and 1,851 apartment beds, and the renovation of 4,588 existing residence hall beds. A total of 447 existing beds are slated to be demolished. The expansion of the housing system will also permit the decompression of several hundred triple bedrooms to double bedrooms.

FINANCIAL PLAN

Table 1 summarizes the projects by type, development budget, and scheduled UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN completion.

Project

Project Type

Revenue Beds/Units

Development Budget

Scheduled Completion

Cavalier Acquisition Mercer 32W 33W 35W 29W/40W 30W McMahon Stevens Court Addition Terry Lander New Site A Haggett McCarty New Site B Hansee New Site C 2104 House Stevens Court Blakely Village Laurel Village

Demolish Demolish UW New UW New UW New Public/Private Public/Private Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain Public/Private Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain UW New Reno/Maintain Public/Private Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain Reno/Maintain

0 0 488 250 481 656 195 1,067 271 564 599 500 733 560 454 302 500 31 300 80 80

7,000,000 2,671,000 45,805,000 23,576,000 44,881,000 94,439,000 22,990,000 89,509,000 61,478,000 53,629,000 69,316,000 72,214,000 66,402,000 54,457,000 50,627,000 78,025,000 -

August-08 August-11 August-11 August-11 August-12 August-13 August-13 August-14 August-14 August-15 August-16 August-16 August-17 August-18 August-18 August-19 August-20 August-37 August-37 August-37 August-37

8,112

$ 836,691,000

Table 1: Summary Table 1: Program Programand andBudget Budget Summary

The distribution of units by bedroom occupancy (e.g., single, double, triple, quad) The distribution of units by bedroom occupancy (e.g., single, double, triple, quad) over the 15-year over the 15-year planning horizon is illustrated in Figure 1. The percent of single planning horizon is illustrated in Figure 1. The percent of single rooms increases significantly with the rooms increases significantly with the introduction of new apartment beds, which introduction of new apartment beds, which are important to retain more upper-division student on are important to retain more upper-division student on campus. Triple and quad campus. Triple and quad occupancy rooms are virtually eliminated from the housing system. occupancy rooms are virtually eliminated from the housing system. 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000

Singles Doubles

2,000

Triples Quads

1,000

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY '09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

Figure 1: Bedroom Occupancy Distribution by Year

'19

'20

'21

'22

'23

Laurel Village

Reno/Maintain

8,112

$ 836,691,000

August-37

Table 1: Program and Budget Summary

The distribution of units by bedroom occupancy (e.g., single, double, triple, quad) over the 15-yea

planning horizon is illustrated in Figure 1. The percent of single rooms increases significantly with th

introduction of new apartment beds, which are important to retain more upper-division student on campus. Triple and quad occupancy rooms are virtually eliminated from the housing system. 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000

Singles Doubles

2,000

Triples Quads

1,000 0 '09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'19

'20

'21

'22

'23

Figure 1: Bedroom Occupance Distribution by Year Figure 1: Bedroom Occupancy Distribution by Year

FINANCIAL PLAN

Figure providesaasimilar similargraphic graphic distribution by unit configuration by year. Figure 2 2 provides forfor thethe distribution by unit configuration by year. Traditional bed Traditional beds dominate the current housing system, whereas the target distribution dominate the current housing system, whereas the target distribution will offer a wider variety of uni UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN will offer wider variety of unit types will appeal to students of all enrollment types thatawill appeal to students of all that enrollment classifications. Residence hall double rooms with classifications. Residence hall double rooms with private baths, which are more 2private baths, ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC appealing to freshmen sophomores, replaceand many of the traditional beds. which areand more appealing towill freshmen sophomores, will replace many of the When completed, thecompleted, student housing system will system consistwill of consist one-third traditional beds, beds, traditional beds. When the student housing of one-third traditional one-third roomswith with private baths and beds, suite and beds, and one-third one-third double double rooms private baths and suite one-third apartmentapartment beds. beds. 9,000

Traditional Beds

8,000

Semi-Suites Dbl Room w/ Private Bath

7,000

Apartments

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 '09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'19

'20

'21

'22

'23

Figure 2: byby Year Figure 2: Unit UnitType TypeDistribution Distribution Year

In addition to student housing improvements, the program and development In addition to student housing improvements, the program and development budgets include the budgets include the acquisition of the Cavalier Apartments, which will be used as a acquisition of the Cavalier Apartments, which will be used as a development site, and ground-level retail development site, and ground-level retail and office space. In addition, parking will and office space. In addition, parking will be provided for residents (300 spaces) and commuters (445 be provided for residents (300 spaces) and commuters (445 spaces). spaces).

Benchmarking and Escalation The financial plan builds on the current fiscal year, that is, many of the assumptions about future operations derive directly from the current operation. The benchmark year, fiscal year 2009, mirrors the current UW operating budget.

Escalation of development costs and operating revenues and

expenses are the most significant assumptions regarding the financial veracity of the plan. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

The financial plan builds on the current fiscal year, that is, many of the assumptions about future operations derive directly from the current operation. The benchmark year, fiscal year 2009, mirrors the University’s current operating budget. Escalation of development costs and operating revenues and expenses are the most significant assumptions regarding the financial veracity of the plan.

Benchmarking and Escalation

The recent run-up in construction costs has been considered in project development budgets; however, over the long term, it is not reasonable (nor sustainable) to assume that recent high escalation rates can continue. Consequently, the model assumes that the cost of construction will increase at current rates through FY2009, and at 3% annually thereafter. The annual increase in revenues relative to operating costs is a key contributor to the development of system debt capacity. The University’s plan assumes that rents will increase annually at an average rate of 6%, whereas operating costs will increase at an average rate of 4%. These rates will inevitably fluctuate over the course of the plan; however, it is important that the University maintain the 2% spread between revenue and operating expense increases to generate the necessary debt capacity forUNIVERSITY the plannedOF projects. WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN

FINANCIAL PLAN

Currently, revenues consist primarily of student rental income, and summer/ Revenues conference rental income with some residential parking fees. Planned projects spaces, which will generate fees and lease payments. The current economic occupancy level of the include additional residential parking and tenant spaces, which will generate fees housing system is 93.6%. As renovation and new construction projects are completed, the plan assumes and lease payments. The current economic occupancy level of the housing system that they return to service at 95% average annual occupancy as shown in Figure 3. If occupancy lags is behind 93.6%.projections, As renovation and new construction projects arethe completed, the University may have to consider slowing delivery of the newplan beds until demand assumes that they return to service at 95% average annual occupancy as shown in increases to projected levels. Figure 3. If occupancy lags behind projections, the University may have to consider 96.0% levels. slowing9,000 the delivery of new beds until demand increases to projected 8,500

95.5%

8,000

95.0%

7,500

94.5%

7,000

94.0%

6,500

93.5% 93.0%

6,000 Total Revenue Beds

5,500

92.5%

Total Beds Occupied

5,000

92.0%

Avg Occupancy Rate

91.5%

4,500 '09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'19

'20

'21

'22

'23

Figure 3: Bed Capacity and Occupance by Year Figure 3: Bed Capacity and Occupancy by Year

Rents for the existing halls increase 20% post renovation, and the rents for new Rents for the existing halls increase 20% post renovation, and the rents for new halls are based on those halls are based on those tested in the survey. Figure 4 represents the impact of the tested in the survey. Figure 4 represents the impact of the foregoing assumptions regarding benchmark foregoing assumptions regarding benchmark rental rates, occupancy and escalation. rental rates, occupancy and escalation. Generally, room rates double in ten years. Once renovations Generally, room rates double in ten years. Once renovations and new construction and new construction projects are completed, which is scheduled for FY2021, the rate of increase in projects are completed, which is scheduled for FY2021, the rate of increase in rents rents can be reduced depending on reserve levels. can be reduced depending on reserve levels. $20,000

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY $17,500 $15,000

Singles Doubles

Village and Laurel Village operate at just less than $3.00 per gross square foot. The plan assumes that

these rates will continue—subject to escalation—once renovations are completed. The plan uses the

same rate of $10.93 per gross square foot for new residence halls and $6.50 for new apartments.

Although not considered in the plan, the University may find that it can operate new residence halls at a

lower rate than assumed because of lower maintenance costs, non-recurring fixed costs (e.g., housing

administration), energy-efficient construction. Figure 5 demonstrates the composite cost per bed and

FINANCIAL PLAN

cost per square foot by year. The start of renovations to the existing residence halls in 2013 causes the drop in cost per gross square foot.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN $6,000

$19.00 $20,000 $17.00

$5,000

$17,500

$15.00

$4,000

Singles

$15,000

Doubles

$13.00

$12,500

$3,000

$11.00

$10,000

$2,000

$9.00 $7,500 Cost per GSF

$5,000 $7.00

$1,000

Cost per Bed

$2,500

$5.00

$0 '09 '09

'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'19

Figure 4: Average Rents by Bedroom Occupancy by Year Figure 5: Operating Costs by Year

'20

'21

'22

'23

Figure 4: Average Rents by Bedroom Occupancy by Year

Operating Costs Operating costs for the existing residence halls average $10.93 per gross square

Net income minus direct operating expenses yields the Net Operating Income (NOI) of the housing

Operating foot, whereas Costs Blakely Village and Laurel Village operate at just less than $3.00 per gross costs square foot. The plan assumes that these rates continue—subject Operating existing average $10.93 perwill gross squareas foot, Blakely operating costs. for Thethe NOI is theresidence source ofhalls funds for non-operating transfers, wellwhereas as existing and new toVillage escalation—once renovations are completed. The plan uses the same rate assumes that and Laurel Village operate at just less than $3.00 per gross square foot. The plan debt service. ofthese $10.93 per continue—subject gross square foot for new residence halls and for new rates will to escalation—once renovations are $6.50 completed. The plan uses the The housing system operating pro forma considers three non-operating transfers, which are not apartments. Although not considered in the plan, the University may find same rate of $10.93 per gross square foot for new residence halls and $6.50 for that new itapartments. included in the above direct operating expenses. The public/private properties generate Although not considered in the plan, may find it can operate new of residence at aannual can operate new residence hallsthe at University a lower rate thanthat assumed because lower hallsan income of $900,000 back to the system. Similarly, food service an lower rate thancosts, assumed because of housing lower costs, non-recurring fixedoperations costsenergy(e.g., contribute housing maintenance non-recurring fixedmaintenance costs (e.g., housing administration), additional $1.1 million annually to housing. Finally, the housing system contributes over $3.3 million administration), energy-efficient construction. Figure 5 demonstrates the composite cost per bed and efficient construction. Figure 5 demonstrates the composite cost per bed and cost per cost perfoot square by The start ofFood renovations theexisting existing residence halls in 2013 causes the also annually to support theyear. Housing andrenovations Services (HFS) administration. (HFS administration square byfoot year. The start of totothe residence halls in 2013 drop in cost per gross square foot. oversees Retail and Remote Food Services.) In FY2009, these transfers result in a net outflow of over causes the drop in cost per gross square foot.

system. Figure 6 graphically illustrates the impact on the NOI by increasing revenues faster than

$1.3 million. The financial plan assumes that each of these transfers increases by 4% annually. $6,000

$19.00 $17.00

$5,000

$15.00

$4,000

$13.00 $3,000 $11.00

$2,000 ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

$9.00 Cost per GSF $7.00

Cost per Bed

$1,000 $-

$5.00 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23

Figure Figure 5: Operating Operating Costs Costs by by Year Year

Net income income minus expenses yieldsyields the Net Income (NOI) of the housing Net minusdirect directoperating operating expenses theOperating Net Operating Income (NOI) system. Figure 6 graphically illustrates the impact on the NOI by increasing revenues faster than of the housing system. Figure 6 graphically illustrates the impact on the NOI by increasing revenues faster than operating costs. The NOI is the source of funds for 5 AND ERSON STRICKLER, LLC non-operating transfers, as well as existing and new debt service.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

The housing system operating pro forma considers three non-operating transfers, which are not included in the above direct operating expenses. The public/private properties generate an annual income of $900,000 back to the housing system. Similarly, food service operations contribute an additional $1.1 million annually to housing. Finally, the housing system contributes over $3.3 million annually to support the Housing and Food Services (HFS) administration. (HFS administration also oversees Retail and Remote Food Services.) In FY2009, these transfers result UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLANPLAN UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER in a net outflow of over $1.3 million. The financial plan assumes that each of these transfers increases by 4% annually.

FINANCIAL PLAN FINANCIAL PLAN

$140,000 $140,000 $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $100,000

Net Revenue Net Revenue Operating Cost Cost Operating Net Operating IncomeIncome Net Operating

$80,000 $80,000 $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0 '09

'10 '09 '11 '10 '12 '11 '13 '12 '14 '13 '15 '14 '16 '15 '17 '16 '18 '17 '19 '18 '20 '19 '21 '20 '22 '21 '23'22

'23

Figure 6: Operating Position by by Year Figure 6:6:Operating Position Year Figure Operating Position by Year

Development budgets for renovations and new construction include the hard cost Development Budgets Development Budgets

Development Budgets

of construction, infrastructure, design fees, furnishings, project management fees, Development budgets for renovations and new include the hard cost of construction, Development budgets for renovations and construction new construction include the cost of construction, contingency, financing fees, and inflation. Current costs consider the hard recent high infrastructure, design fees, furnishings, project management fees, contingency, financing fees, and infrastructure, management contingency, financing annual inflation design rates offees, 6% furnishings, and higher;project however, the plan fees, assumes an annual rate of fees, and inflation. Current costs consider the recent high annual inflation rates of 6% and higher; however, the the Current costs consider recent high annual inflation rates of 6% and higher; however, 3%inflation. beginning in 2009, which isthe more representative of historical long-term inflation plan plan assumes an annual rate of 3% beginning in 2009, whichwhich is more representative of historical long- longannual rate 3% beginning in 2009, is more representative of historical rates. assumes Table 2an provides the of detail on the components of the development budgets by term term inflation rates. Table 2 provides the detail on the components of the development budgets by project inflation type. rates. Table 2 provides the detail on the components of the development budgets by project type. type. project

Table 2: Development Budget Assumptions Table 2: Development Budget Assumptions Table 2: Development Budget Assumptions

The annual capital requirements and cumulative outstanding debt are shown in Figure 7. The total The annual capital requirements and cumulative outstanding debt are shown in Figure 7. The total development budget for all renovations and new construction is projected to be $836,691,000, development budget for all renovations and new construction is projected to be $836,691,000, 96 HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY including escalation. including escalation.

FINANCIAL PLAN The annual capital requirements and cumulative outstanding debt are shown in Figure 7. The total development FINANCIAL PLAN budget for all renovations and new construction is projected to be $836,691,000, including escalation.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ■ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MASTER PLAN $900,000 $800,000

Cumulative Budget

$900,000 $700,000

Annual Capital Budget

$800,000 $600,000

Cumulative Budget

$700,000 $500,000

Annual Capital Budget

$600,000 $400,000 $500,000 $300,000 $400,000 $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $200,000 $0 $100,000

'09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

$0 Figure7:7:Capital Capital Requirements by Figure Requirements by Year Year '09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'16

'17

'18

'19 '19

'20 '20

'21 '21

'22 '22

'23

The plan projects annual debt based on the assumptions set forth in the Debt Ser vices and Debt Figure 7: Capital Requirements by service Year Service and Reserves Reser ves foregoing section. As might be expected of a program that finances over $800

The planin projects debt service based on the assumptions set forth the foregoinglarger section. As Debt Service and million projectannual debt,Reserves annual debt service payments consume aninincreasingly

might be expected of revenues. a program that finances over $800 million project debt, annualfrom debt service portion total net Debt service a percent of in revenues The planofprojects annual debt service based on theasassumptions set forth in theincreases foregoing section. As payments consume an increasingly larger portion of total net revenues. Debt service as a percent of 20% of 60% in FY2019. Coverage (i.e., mightinbeFY2009 expected to of maximum a program that finances over $800 Debt millionService in project debt, annual debt service revenues increases from 20% in FY2009 to maximum of 60% in FY2019. Debt Service Coverage (i.e., NOI/Debt Service) the housing above 1.0 (i.e., payments consume an for increasingly largersystem portionremains of total net revenues. Debt breakeven) service as a percent of NOI/Debt Service) for the housing system remains above 1.0 (i.e., breakeven) throughout the plan; revenues increases fromhowever, 20% in FY2009 to fall maximum 60%campus in FY2019. Debt throughout the plan; it does belowofthe target ofService 1.25 Coverage for all (i.e., however, it does fall below the campus target of 1.25 for all auxiliaries for several years, as shown in NOI/Debt Service) for the housing above auxiliaries for several years, as system shown remains in Figure 8. 1.0 (i.e., breakeven) throughout the plan; Figure 8. however, it does fall below the campus target of 1.25 for all auxiliaries for several years, as shown in The Transfers referenced in Figure 8 include the HFS Administration allocation, Figure 8. The Transfers referenced in Figure 8 include the HFS Administration allocation, income from

income from public/private partnerships, and the annual contribution from Dining

public/private and the annual contribution Dining Services. Coverage is calculated The Transferspartnerships, referenced in Figure 8 include the HFSfrom Administration allocation, income from Services. Coverage is calculated both with the Transfers included as an operating both with the Transfers included operating expense from and as a non-operating expense.is calculated public/private partnerships, and as thean annual contribution Dining Services. Coverage expense and as a non-operating expense. both with the Transfers included as an operating expense and as a non-operating expense. 2.75

2.75 2.50

Campus Program Minimum DSC Including Transfers Campus Minimum DSC NotProgram Including Transfers DSC Including Transfers DSC Not Including Transfers

2.50 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75'09 '10 '09 '10

'11 '11

'12 '12

'13 '13

'14 '14

'15 '15

'16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23

Figure 8: Debt Service Coverage by Year Figure 8: Debt Service Coverage Coverage by byYear Year Figure

7 7

ANDERSON STRICKLER, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN 97LLC ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

FINANCIAL PLAN UNIVERSITY ■ COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN The balance inOF theWASHINGTON housing reserve fund represents theHOUSING overall health of the housing system. Reserves are vital to fund extraordinary expenses, capital expenses, planned operating deficits, and shortfalls in debt service coverage. Although cash flow alone The balance in the housing reserve fund represents the overall health of the housing system. Reserves does not provide a 1.25x debt service coverage ratio, the plan projects that the are vital to fund extraordinary expenses, capital expenses, planned operating deficits, and shortfalls in housing reserve fund will be sufficient to make up any shortfalls. debt service coverage. Although cash flow alone does not provide a 1.25x debt service coverage ratio, the

plan projects that theprojected housing reserve funds be sufficient make up plan. any shortfalls. Figure 9 shows the balance in will reserves for theto15-year Transfers to and from reserves are represented by the vertical bars, and reserve balances that are Figure 9 shows the projected balance in reserves for the 15-year plan. Transfers to and from reserves restricted to make shortfall in and debtreserve service coverage shown in to dark blue. are represented by up theavertical bars, balances that are are restricted make up a shortfall in Annual earnings on reserve balances assume an earnings rate of 4.25%. Annual debt service coverage are shown in dark blue. Annual earnings on reserve balances assume an earnings transfers to reserves are net of to ongoing which expenses, are budgeted rate of 4.25%. Annual transfers reservescapital are net expenses, of ongoing capital which at are budgeted at 75% of the projected surplus in any given year, but not less than $2 million. 75% of the projected surplus in any given year, but not less than $2 million. $70,000 $60,000

Restricted for Debt Coverage

$50,000

Net To (From) Reserves

Unrestricted Funds Debt Service

$40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 '09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'19

'20

'21

'22

'23

($10,000)

Figure9:9:Cash CashFlow Flowand andReserves ReservesbybyYear Year Figure

ANDERSON STRICKLER, LLC

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

100

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

BACKGROUND

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

101

102

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

A G H

C D

F I

x x x

x x x x

J K University of Washington - Seattle

The University Of Washington Department Of Housing and Food Services is committed to providing students an outstanding residential experience that supports the academic mission of the University. Community, customer service, teamwork, and innovation and creativity are the underlying values that guide them to create living and learning environments that are safe, welcoming, supportive and fun fostering a sense of belonging in a community where diversity is valued and celebrated.

LEGEND

In 2006 there was a demand for 5,311 beds including returning students, new freshmen, other new residents, those housed in temporary housing and on waiting lists. For the fall of 2007 it is projected that this number will increase to 5,346. In addition to these numbers the system accommodated another 1,200 students in their family and single student apartment accommodations. The purpose of this section is to provide an analysis of existing conditions of each of the buildings evaluating them for potential renovations bringing them in line with the ideal community model.

Hansee

McCarty

Haggett

McMahon

Laurel

Commodore/Dutchess

Terry/Lander

Mercer

Stevens Court/Stevens Court Addition

Blakeley

Nordheim

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

103

McMahon Hall - Existing Dining Level

Dining Area

Vending

Laundry

Storage Mech

F.S. Offices

Storage

NOTES

Kitchen

Fitness Room

Custodial

Mech

Custodial

LEGEND

•

Recently renovated dining area

Office

•

Laundry and vending for each tower

Support

•

Fitness room adjacent to south tower laundry room

Community Space

•

Kitchen and custodial staff area

Resident Coordinator/ RA Double Student Room Single Student Room

104

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Maintenance Office

McMahon Hall - Existing and Proposed Floor 1

CLERESTORY

Outdoor Patio

CLERESTORY

Photo Lab ROOF

Music Practice

Redwood Awning

Female Restroom CLERESTORY

Male Restroom

CLERESTORY

Residence Life

Meeting Room

Advisory Office

Game Room

102B

Reception

Mail

Main Desk

Study Lounge

Lounge RD Apt

Mech Guest Apt

Redwood Timber Gable Roof

Mech Meeting Room

RD Apt

TV Lounge Guest Apt

EXISTING NOTES

•

Resident director apartments (2)

•

Guest apartments (2)

•

Community mail boxes, advising offices, and front desk

•

Music practice room and photo lab

•

Game room, TV lounge adjacent to lobby and study lounge

•

Terrace with view to the mountains to the east

PROPOSED NOTES

•

Add redwood awning to clearly identify entry off patio

•

Use redwood timbers/framing to identify building entries

•

USe lantern light fixtures similar to those on building patio in the new redwood entry

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

105

McMahon Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor

Kitchen/Recycle

Study (2)

Kitchen/Recycle

Study (2)

Storage

Mech

McMahon Hall North Tower

Storage

McMahon Hall South Tower

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Lack of community space on the residential floors

Office

•

Lounge at the first floor

Support

•

Laundry and vending at the dining level

Community Space

•

Student rooms are suite-style with four or five double occupancy bedrooms

Resident Coordinator/ RA

sharing a hall bath and living room with a balcony

Double Student Room

•

Designed for upper class student housing but used as first year housing

Single Student Room

•

Suite-style unit limits community building on the floor

•

Study rooms are too small

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Single

Double

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Total

South Tower

North Tower 1

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

Floor 9

Floor 10

Floor 11

476

519

480

520

1039

Single

Double

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Total

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

106

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY Single

Double

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

McMahon Hall - Proposed Typical Residence Floor

Study

ADA Room (Third Floor)

Study

Hall Bath Lounge

Lounge

Elevator Lobby Storage Storage Double Mech 4-person w/Bath Single Apt/Quads

Double

North Tower 1st Floor 40 2nd Floor 40 3rd Floor 40 ADA Room (Third Floor) 4th Floor 40 5th Floor 40 ADA RA 6th Floor Single40 Double Apt

240

North Tower RENOVATION ISSUES Floor 1

Elevator Lobby

Total

RD Apt

Floor 4

up to code

Single

•

52 room at unit opposite elevator 1 48 Convert student room/living

Floor 4

into hall lounge

Locate to52lounge 1 48 RA room adjacent

•

52 adjacent to RA room 1 to student 48 Convert single room

•

48 Use a combination of color and redwood timbers to

Remove unit bath at new lounge location

Floor 7

Provide elevator lobby (if code requires) 52 1 3 48

Floor 8 Floor 9

52 to soften Floor 10 Enclose balconies 3 48 with redwood1 screening

Floor 10

Floor 11

52 1 3 - utilize 48 “arts and crafts” architecture detailing

476

253

Floor 3

Floor 9

Apt

Floor 6 • Floor 6 Convert 3unit living class52student singles 48 rooms into upper 1 Floor 8

RA Apt

0 0 0 Hall Bath 0 0 Total 0

Double South Tower Ground 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor 6th Floor

•

ADA 3 Apt

41 44 41 42 41 RD 44

Floor 1

Floor 5

Floor 7

Double

1 1 1 1 1 1 Total

RD Apt

• Floor 5 All unit restrooms become shared1 hall baths 3 48 52 •

McMahon Hall South Tower

South Tower 0 1

McMahon Hall North Tower

Floor 2 52 bedroom doors 48 and bring unit1 walls and • Floor 2 Remove 3unit doors Floor 3

3-person ADA StorageRA Mech Storage Apt Apartment Staff Total

Apt

Triple

highlight horizontal1and vertical lines on building exterior 48 52

519

480

520

1039

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Single

Double

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Total

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

South Tower

North Tower 1

Floor 1 Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

Floor 9

Floor 10

Floor 11

424

2 2 2 2

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

Floor 9

Floor 10

Floor 11

522

444

2 2 2 2

542

1064

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

107

8 40 40 30 28 40 40 226

McCarty Hall - Existing Ground Floor

Restroom

Storage RA -

Mech.

Garbage

Mech.

Stor. Trans. Elec.

Lounge

Quad

Storage

Quad

Cust. Storage

Storage

Stor.

Mech

Cust. Storage

Storage

LEGEND

Office Support Community Space Resident Coordinator/ RA Double Student Room Single Student Room

NOTES

•

North Hall ground floor used for storage and mechanical space

•

South Hall contains two quad residential units and four double units with community hall bath, 1 single room

•

RA room adjacent to hall bath

•

Hall lounge is at the far end of the hall from student rooms with mechanical and storage spaces in between

108

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

McCarty Hall - Proposed South Ground Floor

Custodial Restroom RA -

Garbage

Mech.

Stor. Trans. Elec.

Lounge

Mech.

Quad

Storage

Quad

Cust. Storage

Storage

Stor.

Mech

Cust. Storage

Storage

NOTES

•

Renovate and refresh student rooms

•

Replace windows and plumbing fixtures

•

Update mechanical systems

•

Update technology in student rooms

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

109

McCarty Hall - Existing Central Floor 2

Food Service Storage

BALCONY

Convenience Store

Storage Multipurpose Rooms

Ian’s Internet Cafe

Cafe Storage

Stor.

Outdoor Patio

Food Service Storage

Stor.

Refrigerators

Men’s Restroom

NOTES

Women’s Restroom

LEGEND

•

Recently renovated (2001) internet café and convenience store

Office

•

Large multi-purpose rooms with access to enclosed courtyard

Support

•

Food Service & custodial storage and walk-in refrigerators

Community Space

•

Small men’s and women’s restrooms

Resident Coordinator/ RA Double Student Room Single Student Room

110

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

McCarty Hall - Proposed Central Floor 2

Food Service Storage

BALCONY

Convenience Store

Ian’s Internet Cafe

Cafe Storage

Stor.

Storage

Ian’s Expansion

Stor.

Multipurpose Rooms

Refrigerators

Men’s Restroom

Women’s Restroom

NOTES

•

Expand Ian’s Internet Cafe into food prep area

•

Renovate and refresh multipurose rooms as needed

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

111

McCarty Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor NOTES

•

Study rooms are sized for individuals – too

•

Laundry

Lounge

Lounge at the end of the south hall has good views toward water

•

BALCONY

small for groups

Study

ADA (2,4,6 Floors)

Hall laundry located on each floor adjacent to

Cust.

kitchen and RA •

Hall Bath

Storage

Student rooms are double occupancy with community Hall Baths

•

Storage on each floor

•

Even number floors have 1-bedroom suites (3

Storage

Study

Kitchen

per tower)

Study

Storage

Kitchen/Recycle

Hall Bath

Laundry

Storage

Cust.

LEGEND

227A

Office

ADA (2,4,6 Floors)

Support

Lounge

Community Space

Resident Coordinator/ RA Double Student Room Single Student Room

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

Triple

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Quads

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

Ground

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

176

180

Single

Double

Triple

Quads

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

379

RD Apt

Total

South Tower

North Tower

144

112

RD Apt

216

3 1 3

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

373

3 3

752

McCarty Hall - Proposed Typical Residence Floor Storage

Hall Bath

Study

Option1. Hall Bath

Commons

Expanded Elevator Lobby

Laundry

Lounge Trash

Storage/Misc.

Option 2.

Study

Hall Bath

Commons

Expanded Elevator Lobby

Laundry

Lounge Trash

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

•

Renovate and update hall baths to simplify

Storage/Misc.

configuration and make room for common area •

Provide common space at the midpoint of the hall to create a point of contact for students

•

Option 3.

Incorporate hall study at commons to bring light into

Storage

the hall •

Study

Hall Bath

Relocate laundry adjacent to commons to increase

Commons

Expanded Elevator Lobby

Hall Bath

Laundry

use of common space

Lounge Trash

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

Triple

Quads

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Ground

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Single

Double

Triple

Quads

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

249

RD Apt

Total

South Tower

North Tower Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

240

3 1 3

253

226

8 3 3

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

502

113

McCarty Hall - Existing Central Floor 3

Women’s Restroom

Employee Breakroom

Residence Life Office

RD Apt Maintenance Office

Storage Mens restroom

Res. Life Office (NE Resource Center)

Storage Mail PRINTER

Student Leadership Office

Main Lounge

Advisory Office

Reception KEY CABINET

Student leadership storage

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Resident director apartment

Office

•

Student leadership offices

Support

•

Community mail boxes, advising offices and front desk

Community Space

•

Main lounge adjacent to lobby

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Employee break room and maintenance staff office

Double Student Room

•

Men’s and women’s restrooms

Single Student Room

114

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

McCarty Hall - Proposed Central Floor 3

Employee Breakroom

Women’s Restroom

Conference Room

RD Apt Maintenance Office

Storage Restroom Storage

Library

Mail Advisory Office

PRINTER

Student Leadership Office

Main Lounge

Reception KEY CABINET

Storage

NOTES

•

Renovate and refresh common spaces

•

Update lighting and plumbing fixtures

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

115

Terry/Lander Hall - Existing Ground Floor

Public Restroom

Laundry Room IT office storage Financial Services

Activity Center Office

Restroom

Photo Lab

Custodial Cust. Breakroom Office Elec Elec.

Storage Storage

Men’s Restroom

Study Room

Storage

Mech

Activity Center Administrative

Game Room

Design Office

Storage Storage

Storage Cust. Office

Main Lounge

Fitness Center

Public Restroom

Kitchen Storage

Restroom

Kitchen Storage

Financial Services

Breakroom

Computer Resource Center

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Storage and custodial space at Terry ground floor

Office

•

Administrative, Financial and Residential services and Design office at Lander

Support

ground floor

Community Space

•

Kitchen storage and loading dock located at dining ground floor

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Large fitness room and main lounge both have fire places

Double Student Room

•

Study room, fitness center, computer resource center, music practice and laundry

Single Student Room

located adjacent to main lounge •

116

Laundry

Activity center and game room

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Residential Services

Terry/Lander Hall - Proposed Ground Floor

Public Restroom

Laundry Room

Activity Center Office

Restroom

Men’s Restroom

Storage Financial Services

Photo Lab

Custodial Cust. Breakroom Office Elec Elec.

Storage Storage

Kitchen Storage

Study Room

Storage

Mech

Activity Center Administrative

Game Room

Laundry Design Office

Storage Storage

Storage Cust. Office

Main Lounge

Fitness Center

Restroom

Public Restroom

Kitchen Storage Kitchen Storage

Breakroom

Financial Services

Residential Services

Computer Resource Center

NOTES

•

Update finishes in common space

•

Expand equipment choice in fitness room

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

117

Terry/Lander Hall - Existing Floor 1

Main Desk/ Food Service Office Advisory Office Restrooms Storage Recycle

Study

Res.Life Resource Center

Convenience Store

Kitchen T

Restrooms

Mail

Office

Male Floor Lounge

TV Room

TV Lounge

Mail

Advisory Office

Meeting Rooms (2)

Mtg. Lobby Mtg.

RD Apt

ADA Unit

RA Apt

ADA Units

Lounge Below

Kitchen

Office

Meeting Room

Offices (2)

RD Apt

Cust.

Hall Bath

Lobby

Lounge

Dining Outdoor Patio

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Renovated dining and convenience store

Office

•

TV lounge (1), offices, meeting and study rooms

Support

•

Wireless internet connection in Eleven 01 area

Community Space

•

Main desk and mail at Terry side serves Terry-Lander, Mercer and Stevens Court

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

RD apartments (2) and adjacent advising offices

Double Student Room

•

ADA units and student rooms at Terry side

Single Student Room T

118

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Triple Student Room

Terry/Lander Hall - Proposed Floor 1

Main Desk/ Office Recycle

Study

Kitchen

Male Floor Lounge

Restrooms

Mail

Office

Convenience Store

Phone Booths TV Lounge

Mail

Study Room

TV Room

Advisory Office

Meeting Rooms (2) Lobby

Mtg. RD Apt

ADA Unit

RA Apt

ADA Units

Lounge Below

Kitchen

Meeting Room

Offices (2)

RD Apt

Cust.

Hall Bath

Office

Lobby

Lounge

Dining Outdoor Patio

NOTES

•

Convert triples to double rooms

•

Update finishes and technology

•

Update plumbing fixtures as needed

•

Expand WiFi capability

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

119

Lander Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor

Study

Cust./Recycle

RA Apt

Hall Bath T

NOTES

Kitchen

Hall Bath

RA Apt

Lounge T

LEGEND

•

Studies are sized for individuals – too small for groups

Office

•

Hall lounge located on each floor adjacent to kitchen and RA rooms (2)

Support

•

Student rooms are double occupancy with community style hall baths

Community Space

•

Using approximately have the rooms as triples

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Hall Baths (2 – one for men and one for women on each floor)

Double Student Room

•

Apartments on floors 3, 5 and 8

Single Student Room T

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

Double w/ Bath

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

ADA Apt

RA Apt w/ Bath

Total

121

RD Apt

North Tower Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

119

Floor 4

122

Floor 5

121

Floor 6

121

Floor 7

111

Floor 8

108

471

823

320

120

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Triple Student Room

Lander Hall - Proposed Typical Residence Floor

Study

Elev. Equip.

ADA Unit

Trash/Recycle

Kitchen

Hall Bath Lounge

Hall Bath

Laundry Study

NOTES

•

Relocate study rooms to bring light into elevator lobby

•

Locate laundry and lounge to be shared by both sides of the hall

•

Relocate hall baths to centralize plumbing core and make room for hall lounge expansion

•

Eliminate triples

PROPOSED RESIDENCE Single CAPACITY Double

Double w/ Bath

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

ADA Apt

RA Apt w/ Bath

Total

RD Apt

North Tower Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

1 1 1

Floor 8

626

590

471

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

121

Terry Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor

Cust./Recycle

T RA Apt

Hall Bath

Study

Lounge

Kitchen

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Student rooms are double occupancy bedrooms sharing a hall bath

•

Using one third of bedrooms as triples

•

Four small individual study rooms – too small for group study

•

RA rooms are stacked so one is adjacent to hall lounge on the same level, the

Office Support Community Space Resident Coordinator/ RA

other on the floor above, but still adjacent to the lounge

Double Student Room Single Student Room T

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

Double w/ Bath

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

North Tower 12

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

Floor 9

Floor 10

Floor 11

416

279

721

Floor 1

122

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Triple Student Room

Terry Hall - Proposed Typical Residence Floor

Trash/Recycle

Study

Hall Bath

Laundry

Study

Cust.

NOTES

•

Locate study spaces to bring light into the hall at the elevator lobby

•

Co-locate laundry and hall bath to allow renovation and common plumbing core

•

Eliminate triples

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

Double w/ Bath

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

North Tower 16

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

Floor 9

Floor 10

Floor 11

513

Floor 1

494

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

123

Mercer Hall - Existing Basement Floor

Music Practice Bike Storage

Mech

Storage

Laundry/Kitchen

Student Cafe/TV lounge Employee Breakroom

Storage

Tunnel

Mech Storage

Mech

Garbage

Stor.

Custodial

Study Kitchen

FA Controls

Male Hall Bath

Employee Restrooms

Storage

Laundry Room

Storage

Male Hall Bath

Kitchen Storage

Mech

Music Practice

Storage

Cust. Breakroom Cust./ Garbage

NOTES

•

Cust.

LEGEND

Student meeting space is long narrow room and not conducive to community

Office

meetings

Support

•

Steam piping in Student café makes the room too hot for gatherings

Community Space

•

Laundry room and music practice room in each wing

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Generously sized bike storage room in the west wing basement

Double Student Room

•

Students living at the basement level have no RA

Single Student Room

•

One small study located on the west wing only

124

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Mercer Hall - Proposed Basement Floor

Mech

Bike Storage

Storage

Employee Breakroom

Storage

Tunnel

Mech Mech Stor. Relocate cafe and laundry together. More social, more glass; add seminar room, offices, program space.

FA Controls Employee Restrooms Storage

Entrance

Relocate staff apartment RA Apt

Program space: seminar

Cut in new windows Hall Bath Note: entrances on first floor

NOTES

•

Program space: offices

LEGEND

Move all student rooms off the basement level and place laundry, cafe, student

Office

occupied space and seminar rooms on window side of the building

Support

•

Relocate staff apartment to basement level

Community Space

•

Add windows to bring in light to social spaces

Resident Coordinator/ RA Double Student Room Single Student Room Daylighted Program Space

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

125

Mercer Hall - Existing Floor 1

Mail

RD office

Vending

Public Restroom T

TV Lounge

Cust.

Custodial

Kitchen/ Garbage Female Hall Bath RD Apt Male Hall Bath

Female Hall Bath

RA Male Hall Bath T

Lobby

FACP (Fire Alarm Control Panel)

Pool

Lounge

Mail Kitchen/ Garbage

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Beautiful teak wood doors and brick work at entry

Office

•

Courtyard spaces are nicely proportioned but appear underutilized

Support

•

Front lobby lounge feels cramped and dark

Community Space

•

Large TV lounge in the west wing – brick walls make the room dark

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Pool table and vending area adjacent to lobby feels crowded

Double Student Room

•

RD apartment in the east wing needs renovation

•

Exterior covered bike storage racks

•

Small efficiency apartment in west wing

126

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Single Student Room T

Triple Student Room

Mercer Hall - Potential Proposed Floor 1

Mail

New, completely overhauled commons zones: pull down walls and bring large window light into center. Hub of community.

Nook / Bring Light into Corridor

Commons

Study Lounge

Kitchen

Trim or replace overgrown shrubs that block any windows.

Public Restroom Nook / Bring Light Into Corridor

Cust.

Study Lounge

Female Hall Bath Hall Bath RA Study/Lounge

RA Commons

Hall Bath

Lighten entrances with welcoming wall-mounted entry lights. Remove industrial lights mounted in arch; replace with downlight to wash doors.

Kitchen

Nook / Bring Light into Corridor

Mechanical Trash / Recycle Elevator Add window to pull in view and light.

Study/Lounge Hall Bath

Study Lounge

NOTES

Nook

LEGEND

•

Move apartment to basement level

Office

•

Provide new windows for increased visibility; lighting of floor

Support

•

Provide new hall lighting to increase levels and ambience

Community Space

•

Renovate hall lounges to create open floor plan and increase light

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Convert bedrooms to single occupancy

Double Student Room

•

Create light zones that span across building; change out interior walls to glass;

Single Student Room

relocate lounge/studies

Daylighted Lounges/Studies

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

127

Mercer Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor

Study

Garbage

Lounge

Cust.

Kitchen

Female Hall Bath

Male Hall Bath

Female Hall Bath

Cust. Garbage Kitchen

Lounge Male Hall Bath

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Lounge space (2 – one on each wing) on each residential floor

Office

•

Student rooms are double occupancy sharing a hall bath

Support

•

Hall baths are clean and well maintained

Community Space

•

Student bunk/loft beds overlap fixed desk space

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Walls in rooms and halls are red brick creating a overall dark atmosphere

Double Student Room

•

Rooms and corridors are carpeted, halls are red brick

•

Kitchen, vending, laundry facilities in the west basement

•

Laundry and vending in the east basement

•

Kitchenette with sink and microwave unit in each wing need renovation

•

One small study on each floor

Single Student Room T

Triple Student Room

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

Triple

Ground

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Quads

3 Person Apt

RA Apt

Total

Single

Double

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Total

West Tower

East Tower

128

RD Apt

Ground

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

174

225

176

230

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

455

Mercer Hall - Potential Proposed Typical Residence Floor

Study

Lounge

RA Nook

Kitchen

Female Hall Bath

Male Hall Bath

Female Hall Bath

Kitchen

Nook or Small Study / Bring Light into Corridor

Nook Lounge Male Hall Bath

NOTES

•

Eliminate triple units

•

Convert to all single rooms

•

Relocate kitchens to outside wall with window

•

Bring natural light into corridors with seating nooks

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

Single

Double

Ground

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Single

Double

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Total

West Tower

East Tower 0

Ground

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

104

118

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

222

129

Haggett Hall - Existing Plaza Level

Rick’s Cafe

Study

Lounge/ Game Room UP

Mail

Main Desk

Female Restroom

Advisory Office

Guest Apt

Male Restroom RD Apt

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Resident director apartment located in the south tower

Office

•

Guest apartment located in the north tower

Support

•

Community mail boxes, advising offices and front desk

Community Space

•

Game room, lounge adjacent to lobby

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

View to the mountains from the rear plaza

Double Student Room

•

Café in the north tower

Single Student Room

•

Large study in the south tower

130

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Haggett Hall - Proposed Plaza Level

Rick’s Cafe

Study

Mail Expansion Male Restroom

Male Restroom Lounge/ Game Room

Mail

Main Desk

Female Restroom

Advisory Office

Guest Apt

Female Restroom RD Apt

NOTES

•

Update and refresh finishes and lighting

•

Expand WiFi capability

•

Replace windows

•

Update and replace mechanical systems

•

Expand mail capability and front desk functions as new residence halls come on-line

•

Reconfigure lounge/gameroom to accomodate mail expansion

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

131

Haggett Hall - Existing Dining Level

Side Dining

Main Dining

Side Dining

Catering Office

Men & Women Restrooms

Employee breakroom

Catering Kitchen

Office

Photo Lab

Vending

Laundry Garbage/Storage

Storage

Office

Vending

Storage

Laundry DN

Office Storage

Locker Room

Storage

Storage x

x x x x

NOTES

•

LEGEND

Catering services kitchen and sales office – dining area used as multi – purpose

Office

room for special gatherings only

Support

•

Good views from the multi – purpose rooms

Community Space

•

Laundry and vending for each tower

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Storage and office space consume most of the floor

Double Student Room Single Student Room

132

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Haggett Hall - Proposed Dining Level

Side Dining

Main Dining

Side Dining

Catering Office

Accomodate Catering Program; Expand Area as Needed

Catering Kitchen

Office

Laundry Garbage/Storage

Storage

Office

Storage

Laundry DN

Office Storage

Locker Room

Storage

Storage x

x x x x

NOTES

•

Expand catering option

•

Update finishes, mechanical, and lighting

•

Expand loading nook to handle up to 3 semi tractor trailers

•

Reroute access to loading dock to approach from the east side

•

Provide 9,000 SF minimum for cullinary support kitchen, production, catering office, showroom, and central bakery

•

Customer parking accommodated in existing garage

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

133

Haggett Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor

STAIR

# 3

Kitchen/ Ironing

Hall Bath

RA Triple Room (Floors 2, 4, 6 & 8)

Lounge

RA Triple Room (Floors 2, 4, 6 & 8)

ROOF

Hall Bath

Hall Bath Cust.

Cust.

Study

NOTES

•

LEGEND

Lounge located every other floor – lounge space is two story with balcony space

Office

above and stairs

Support

•

Configuration and size awkward for hall meetings

Community Space

•

RA rooms (2) are located opposite the lounge adjacent to stair and elevator

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

One small study per floor – too small for a group

Double Student Room

•

Student rooms are awkwardly shaped and too small for two students

Single Student Room

•

Halls are co-ed – Hall baths (2 – one for men and one for women) are located on opposite ends of the hall

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

3 Person Apt

RA Apt w/ Bath

Total

RD Apt

Double

3 Person Apt

RA Apt w/ Bath

Total

RD Apt

Total

South Tower

North Tower Lobby

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

368

134

Single

Lobby

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

407

384

411

2 6 2 6 2 6

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

52 2 2

51 52

818

Haggett Hall - Proposed Typical Residence Floor

UP UP

DN DN

UP UP

STAIR STAIR

## 33

Kitchen/ Ironing

Hall Bath

UP UP

DN DN

Lounge

DN DN

Lounge

RA RA

ROOF ROOF

Hall Bath

Hall Bath Cust.

Cust.

Study

DN DN

UP UP

NOTES

•

Eliminate triple rooms

•

Replace windows and mechanical systems

•

Provide WiFi capability

•

Update finishes, lighting, and funiture

•

Consider converting units to suite configuration to make rooms more gracious and desirable

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Double

3 Person Apt

RA Staff

Total

RD Apt

Single

Double

3 Person Apt

RA Staff

Total

RD Apt

Total

South Tower

North Tower Lobby

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

256

Lobby

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6

Floor 7

Floor 8

295

256

283

2 6 2 6 2 6

36 2 2

35 36

578

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

135

Hansee Hall - Existing Basement Floor

Employee Breakroom

Office

Storage

Elec

Comm.

Restroom

Mech

Storage

Elec

Storage Laundry Storage

Elec Control Rm.

Employee Lockers/ Boiler Rm.

NOTES

•

LEGEND

Laundry room

Office Support Community Space Resident Coordinator/ RA Double Student Room Single Student Room Q

136

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Quadruple Student Room

Hansee Hall - Proposed Basement Floor

Employee Breakroom

Office

Storage

Elec

Comm.

Restroom

Mech

Storage

Elec

Storage Laundry Storage

Elec Control Rm.

Employee Lockers/ Boiler Rm.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

137

Hansee Hall - Existing Floor 1 Female Hall Bath Garbage/Recycle

Female Hall Bath Garbage/Recycle

Kitchen Custodial

Vending

Kitchen

Storage

Custodial

Custodial Q

Vending

Meeting

ADA Hall Baths

Female Hall Bath

TV Lounge Custodial

Female Hall Bath Lounge

Storage

Lobby Meeting

Storage

Student Cafe/Pool Table

Advisory Office

Lounge

Storage

Lounge

Storage

Cust. Vending

Q TA

Vending

Female Hall Bath

Male Hall Bath

Garbage/Recycle

Q RD Apt

Restroom

Cust.

Kitchen

Cust. LEGEND

NOTES

•

Beautiful wood doors and brick work at entry

Office

•

Courtyard spaces are nicely proportioned and landscaped

•

Lobby and living rooms have hardwood floors and paneling, are spacious and well

Support Community Space

maintained •

Electrical outlets and electrical cords from lamps in floor, tripping hazard

•

Fire sprinkler piping is obtrusive

•

Pool table and vending room adjacent to lobby

•

RD apartment in the east wing and west wings

Double

Double w/ Bath

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

ADA Apt

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Austin Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

33 1

Blaine Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

16 32 1

Leary Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

16 1

32 32 6 4

Floor 4 - L416 McKee Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

16 33 4

336

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY Single

North Tower

4 308

138

1 3

Floor 4

Double

Double w/ Bath

Triple

Quads

3 Person Apt

ADA Apt

Double Student Room Single Student Room

EXISITING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Single

Resident Coordinator/ RA

RA Apt

Total

RD Apt

Quadruple Student Room

Three Person Apartment

Hansee Hall - Proposed Floor 1

Female Hall Bath Garbage/Recycle

Kitchen Custodial

Vending

Storage

Custodial

Meeting

ADA Hall Baths

Kitchen

Vending

Meeting

Female Hall Bath

Q Custodial

Female Hall Bath

Lounge

Lounge Storage

Storage

Lobby Meeting Storage

Lounge

Advisory Office

Meeting Lounge

Storage

Cust. Q RD Apt

Vending

Female Hall Bath

Male Hall Bath

Garbage/Recycle

Q RD Apt

RA Telephone

Restroom

Telephone Cust.

Kitchen

Cust.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

139

Hansee Hall - Existing Typical Residence Floor Hall Bath

Hall Bath

Kitchen

Hall Bath

Cust.

Cust. Garbage/ Recycle Storage

Kitchen

Cust.

Kitchen

Kitchen Hall Bath

Hall Bath

Garbage/ Recycle Cust.

Cust.

Hall Bath

Storage

Garbage/ Recycle

Hall Bath

Cust.

Storage

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Lounge spaces at the first floor

•

Rooms and corridors are carpeted

Office

•

Student rooms are single occupancy

•

Kitchen, vending, laundry facilities in

Support

the basement

Community Space

Kitchenette with sink and microwave

Resident Coordinator/ RA

unit in each wing need renovation

Double Student Room

Poor lighting in the hallways

Single Student Room

sharing a hall bath •

Built in wardrobes with uniquely

•

carved doors •

Unit doors are not up to current code

•

for size or thickness

EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPACITY

140

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Hansee Hall - Proposed Typical Residence Floor

Hall Bath

Kitchen

Hall Bath

Cust.

Cust. Garbage/ Recycle Storage

Kitchen

Cust.

Kitchen

Kitchen Hall Bath

Hall Bath

Garbage/ Recycle Cust. Hall Bath

Storage

Cust.

Garbage/ Recycle

Cust. Hall Bath

Cust.

Storage

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

141

Hansee Hall - Existing Floor 4

Storage Storage Bath Lounge/TV Lounge Storage

Communications

Storage

NOTES

LEGEND

•

Temporary housing creates unique floor community

Office

•

Need to increase natural light

Support

•

Poor lighting overall

Community Space

•

Need to go down to another floor to restrooms

Resident Coordinator/ RA

•

Generously sized storage room

Double Student Room Single Student Room Q

142

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Quadruple Student Room

Hansee Hall - Proposed Floor 4

Storage Storage

Lounge Lounge

Storage

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

143

Stevens Court/Stevens Court Addition

Terry/Lander

Mercer

SR/05

GR/PR

Stevens Court

114

Stevens Court Addition

162

122

197

Single Student Apts

Family Housing Apts Stevens Court Addition NOTES

LEGEND

2 17

128

Stevens Court & Stevens Court Addition

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Shared Apt

Studio

1-Bdrm

2-Bdrm

3-Bdrm

TOTALS

Single Student Apts Stevens Court

300

Stevens Court Addition

220

300 2

224

Family Housing Apts 43

Stevens Court Addition 520

144

43 2

567

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

x x x

x x x x

Commodore Dutchess Hall

Terry/Lander

Family Housing Apts Commmodore Duchess

Mercer

Stevens Court and Stevens Court Addition

NOTES

LEGEND

Commodore Dutchess

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Shared Apt

Studio

1-Bdrm

2-Bdrm

3-Bdrm

TOTALS

Family Housing Apts Commodore Duchess 0

139 0

139

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

x x

145

x x x

Laurel Village

Family Housing Apts Commmodore Duchess

2 17

NOTES

LEGEND

Laurel Village

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Shared Apt

Studio

1-Bdrm

2-Bdrm

3-Bdrm

TOTALS

Family Housing Apts Laurel Village 0

146

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Nordheim Court

Blakeley Village

Family Housing Apts Commmodore Duchess

2 17

NOTES

LEGEND

Nordheim Court

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Shared Apt

Studio

1-Bdrm

440

2-Bdrm

3-Bdrm

TOTALS

Single Student Apartments Nordheim Court (operated by Lorig)

460 0

460

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

147

128

148

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

Blakeley Viilage

Nordheim Court FR

Family Housing Apts Commmodore Duchess

2 17

NOTES

LEGEND

Blakeley Village

PROPOSED RESIDENCE CAPACITY

Shared Apt

Studio

1-Bdrm

2-Bdrm

3-Bdrm

TOTALS

160

Family Housing Apts Blakeley Village 0

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BACKGROUND

149

North Campus Working Drawings

150

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY

North Campus Final Sketch

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEVELOPING A HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN

151

152

HANBURY EVANS WRIGHT VLATTAS + COMPANY