News & Insights

Student housing plays a strategic role as an asset on a college campus. It influences recruitment, shapes the residential experience, supports institutional revenue, and often serves as a student’s first impression of campus life. It has also become a major area of investment, with more than $10 billion directed into student housing in 2025.

But institutions are making these decisions in a very different environment than the one that shaped earlier planning standards. Students expect greater privacy and higher-quality living environments. Construction costs have climbed sharply, while the number of students each building can accommodate has declined. At the same time, residence halls are expected to remain financially viable and operate reliably for decades.

As a result, long-term value is increasingly defined by lifecycle value, operating efficiency, and reliability across decades of use.

Why old student housing models no longer match today’s economics

The economics of student housing have changed faster than many campus planning models have.

Student expectations are part of the pressure. According to a 2025 survey, 51% of institutions report that single rooms are now students’ most requested housing option, while demand for suite- and apartment-style living continues to grow. These models may strengthen the residential experience, but they also change the financial equation. They reduce density, increase square footage per student, and place more pressure on the same construction, utility, maintenance, and operating budgets.

That shift is colliding with planning assumptions built for a different era: higher-density residence halls, more predictable construction costs, and cost-per-bed targets that could reasonably support long-term performance.

Those assumptions are harder to defend now. Construction costs have risen by roughly 30% in recent years, while per-bed budgets have not always kept pace. At the same time, many campuses still expect student housing to perform over a 50-year life cycle, even when the available budget no longer supports the systems, materials, and infrastructure needed to get there.

The risk is not simply that projects cost more. The larger issue is that first-cost decisions can quietly undermine the long-term value of the asset. Reducing scope may help a project meet today’s budget, but it can also shorten the building’s effective lifespan, increase maintenance demands, limit future adaptability, and push costs into operating budgets or earlier renewal cycles. The perpetual CapEx budget vs OpEx budget challenge.

A residence hall designed to perform for 50 years may deliver decades of value after the initial investment is recovered. That value becomes much harder to capture when systems are downgraded, infrastructure is undersized, or durability is sacrificed to close a near-term funding gap.

In this environment, the question changes from “What is the cost per bed?” to “What level of investment allows this housing asset to perform financially, operationally, and experientially over its full life?”

Building systems that define student housing performance

Some of the most important housing decisions occur in places students rarely notice: mechanical rooms, ceiling spaces, and utility infrastructure. These systems (heating, cooling, ventilation, and distribution) shape a building’s performance over time with tangible impact on energy use, maintenance, indoor comfort, and reliability throughout a residence hall’s life.

A key early decision is how centralized or distributed these systems are across a campus. Centralized approaches typically reduce the amount of equipment in individual buildings and rooms, which can simplify maintenance and reduce performance variation. More distributed approaches may lower upfront construction costs but introduce a greater number of components that will eventually require service or replacement.

Over time, those differences accumulate. Each additional unit – whether a fan coil, compressor, or packaged system – adds another potential failure point and another maintenance task. When these systems are located in occupied rooms, service activity can directly disrupt students and increase the workload for facilities teams. Across an entire housing portfolio, those effects compound into ongoing operational demand.

Because these choices carry long-term consequences, early evaluation matters. Energy modeling, lifecycle cost comparison, and operational analysis help teams understand how different approaches behave over time, including energy use, maintenance needs, and replacement cycles.

But technical performance alone does not determine outcomes. Operational capacity is equally important. The most advanced mechanical system may not be the most suitable if it requires staffing, technical expertise, or maintenance resources that are not readily available. In some cases, simpler systems that align with how a facilities team actually operates can perform better over the long term. The strongest solutions reflect both system performance and operational reality rather than pushing toward maximum complexity.

In practice at Southeastern Louisiana University: The state’s third-largest public university, faced a familiar pressure: a growing student population and the need for additional on-campus housing to support it. Rather than defaulting to a conventional system approach, the university used early-stage evaluation and energy modeling to compare alternatives before finalizing design decisions. That process led to the first hybrid geothermal system on campus, designed by Salas O’Brien as part of the mechanical, electrical, and technology scope for two new residence halls.

The system draws on naturally cool below-ground temperatures to reduce energy costs and improve cooling efficiency, while supporting a more sustainable living environment for students. The buildings also include community lounges, study rooms, and multipurpose spaces – amenities that depend on reliable infrastructure to perform consistently across daily student use. The projected financial and operational outcomes exceeded initial expectations, reinforcing the value of comparing system strategies early, before design assumptions harden.

However, the long-term impact of these decisions is not reflected solely in operational metrics; it also shapes students’ daily experiences within the building.

How building performance shapes the student experience

Students rarely describe their housing experience in terms of building systems. They talk about rooms that are too hot, too cold, too loud, too humid, or too frequently disrupted by maintenance. For facilities teams, those complaints point back to the same underlying issue: how consistently the building performs.

Thermal comfort, acoustics, indoor air quality, and system reliability all shape the lived experience of student housing. In dense residential environments where students study, sleep, socialize, and recover on different schedules, small performance issues can quickly become quality-of-life concerns. A room that cannot hold temperature, a wall assembly that does not manage sound, or a recurring maintenance issue may seem minor in isolation. Across hundreds of beds, those conditions affect satisfaction, work orders, staff capacity, and the institution’s ability to deliver on the residential experience it promised.

Indoor air quality is often less visible, but it is part of the same equation. Ventilation, humidity control, filtration, and system maintenance influence comfort and well-being in buildings where students spend significant time indoors. When those systems fall short, the impact may not show up immediately in a single complaint, but it often appears over time through comfort concerns, operational strain, and reduced confidence in the building.

Reliability matters just as much. Buildings that require fewer maintenance interventions create fewer disruptions for students and less reactive work from facilities teams. Multiplied across hundreds of rooms, small improvements in system reliability translate into a noticeably smoother residential experience.

Student housing surveys reinforce this relationship, with cost and facility-related issues consistently ranking among the most common student concerns about on-campus housing. The takeaway is simple: building performance is not separate from student experience – it is a core part of it.

When housing performs consistently, students experience something simple but powerful: a building that works, and institutions protect the long-term value of the asset.

How Salas O’Brien can help

Every campus operates within different constraints – financial, operational, and organizational. The most effective housing strategy reflects those realities rather than relying on standardized solutions.

At Salas O’Brien, we help institutions evaluate system alternatives, conduct energy modeling, compare lifecycle costs, and assess how design decisions will affect long-term operations. Just as importantly, we consider how facilities teams manage infrastructure day to day, aligning solutions with real operational capacity.

Whether planning new or modernizing existing student housing or utility strategies, the goal is to support early, impactful decisions. The result is housing that meets student needs and is practical to operate, maintain, and sustain.

To talk about a project, reach out to [email protected] or reach out to our contributor below.

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].