The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2 - 86

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

rangement helps convey shared community
standards, while the outgoing senior business officer gave a more practical rationale: "If
something happens, a parent, a community
person, a taxpayer is going to see it as the university, they don't care what is [the university],
what is whatever."
New partnership models. A second partnership emerged between the university, the
foundation, and Portico, one of Collegia's
corporate rivals, after a decade of the initial
partnership. Almost from the outset, Portico
sought a degree of integration and status with
SU similar to that developed over time with
Collegia, though at an accelerated pace. The
addition of a second partnership has created
some challenges. The campus housing director explained: "At least according to [Collegia],
we are the only campus that has both [Collegia]
and [Portico] on campus. That's just a challenge all by itself. ... Those are two very different partners and trying to get them to operate
in-sync with campus housing is a challenge."
One reason this is a challenge, according to a
senior financial officer, is that "They [Collegia
and Portico] don't like each other, corporately.
It's obvious." University staff members who
remember the time required to build trusting
relationships with Collegia and the logistics
of integration expressed concern that Portico
was "not following the established blueprint."
Other student affairs staff members expressed
wariness of Portico's more corporate approach:
"The general manager that's coming on board
[for Portico], she's not a student affairs professional, she's a leasing professional that works
for a private company. That is a very, very different type of partner." While too early to know
how this partnership will pan out, demand for

additional beds and sustained full occupancy
across the board show it is helping to meet
SU's continued student housing needs.
The third and most unique partnership
consists of the development of several SUaffiliate properties adjacent to campus and
owned by private developers, including two
properties owned by developers that the foundation recruited to purchase land and build
student housing. Affiliates agreed to pay SU
$200 per bed annually and agree to lease only
to SU students. In exchange, affiliates received
direct marketing access to SU students during
designated periods, as well as limited support
for student development activities. Affiliates
compete aggressively for students and it falls
to the campus housing director to referee disputes between affiliates over marketing and
leasing practices. Affiliates are the most expensive housing options, yet many upper-division
students prefer the independence, varied living
arrangements, and amenities they afford. The
campus housing director acknowledged affiliates' responsiveness to the student consumer
market: "They are way better at tapping into
what students think they need and what students want. [One affiliate] put in Bluetoothenabled shower heads, which has gotten more
buzz among our students than any other
feature." Moreover, the campus housing director suggested that the affiliates' competitive
edge stems from the fact they do not need to
be as concerned with student development:
Some of our students are shiny object
shoppers and whoever has the newest,
coolest shiny object, that's where they want
to live. That's what these private developers
are good at ... partially because they are not
limited by the bounds of student development

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

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

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