3 ms·

I’m sorry - this is pretty bizarre; especially considering this is a public school like Berkeley. Wouldn’t the school just expand their housing and own the hom

I’m sorry - this is pretty bizarre; especially considering this is a public school like Berkeley. Wouldn’t the school just expand their housing and own the homes - like many other schools globally? One could even argue your presence is a net negative for students. Had the housing near Berkeley not become a speculative asset, the school would likely own it and rent it at a much cheaper rate.

aidenn0 2y ago
I went to Purdue, a land-grant University in Indiana. When I was there the school had over 30,000 students and housing for about 1/3 of that. They can most certainly afford the land to build more housing, but the demand is not there[1]. Other schools have to require underclassmen to live on campus to fill their housing -- which is often more expensive than living off campus. 1: Housing was provided based on seniority; older students got first pick, yet the housing was overwhelmingly occupied by freshmen.
jedberg 2y ago
The most expensive housing in Berkeley is the housing owned by the University. Private owners provide cheaper alternatives.
RHSeeger 2y ago
A lot of students prefer to live off campus. Also, this would just make the school the landlord. And a landlord that is renting to a "company man" as it were... because if you cause a problem, you can lose both your job (school) and housing at the same time.
jeffbee 2y ago
Last year the California supreme court ordered them to stop construction of 1100 dormitory rooms because they insufficiently studied in their environmental impact report whether a human makes sounds. So no, in California the universities will not simply build housing.
asdefghyk 2y ago
RE ".....Wouldn’t the school just expand their housing and own the homes ..." No because they may not want the risk and the expense. These factors are not well understood in my belief and experience.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
I went to a public school and on campus housing was much, much more expensive than off campus.

aidenn0 2y ago

I went to Purdue, a land-grant University in Indiana. When I was there the school had over 30,000 students and housing for about 1/3 of that. They can most certainly afford the land to build more housing, but the demand is not there[1]. Other schools have to require underclassmen to live on campus to fill their housing -- which is often more expensive than living off campus. 1: Housing was provided based on seniority; older students got first pick, yet the housing was overwhelmingly occupied by freshmen.

jedberg 2y ago

The most expensive housing in Berkeley is the housing owned by the University. Private owners provide cheaper alternatives.

RHSeeger 2y ago

A lot of students prefer to live off campus. Also, this would just make the school the landlord. And a landlord that is renting to a "company man" as it were... because if you cause a problem, you can lose both your job (school) and housing at the same time.

jeffbee 2y ago

Last year the California supreme court ordered them to stop construction of 1100 dormitory rooms because they insufficiently studied in their environmental impact report whether a human makes sounds. So no, in California the universities will not simply build housing.

asdefghyk 2y ago

RE ".....Wouldn’t the school just expand their housing and own the homes ..." No because they may not want the risk and the expense. These factors are not well understood in my belief and experience.

HDThoreaun 2y ago

I went to a public school and on campus housing was much, much more expensive than off campus.