No doubt Pete this issue by itself is not "a big deal" . However this is also a part of the fan experience that OU does not seem to be improving on for the great unwashed. Multiple start times of 11 am, the erosion of the tailgating areas for the average fan while enabling the "tailgate boys " to profit off this reality are certainly not fan friendly.

Yes, and Joe C -- being the smart man that he is -- understands it is harder and harder to get people to leave their home theaters and kegerators.

Especially when staying home is free and actually buying a ticket is getting pretty darn expensive.

Yes, and Joe C -- being the smart man that he is -- understands it is harder and harder to get people to leave their home theaters and kegerators.

Especially when staying home is free and actually buying a ticket is getting pretty darn expensive.

You are correct about that.
From 2015:
http://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklahoma-football-student-tickets-far-pricier-than-national-average/article_e30bf5ea-29d4-11e5-8060-c364930d8855.html

And of course, beer and alcohol flow freely in the OU football suites.

im sure you are aware but for others that might not ... suites are leased space really no different then a condo

technically TU took the lead in the state, they have been serving beer for a few years now. But yes OSU is in front of OU on this issue.

I could be wrong but i think once all of the southside club level seats are in 3 year contracts, then we will see beer for the rest of the stadium. Thats a huge selling point for those seats.

were these dorms really needed?

https://newsok.com/article/5604480/university-of-oklahomas-luxury-housing-beds-go-unfilled

Hasn’t it already been pointed out in this thread that low numbers are typical for the first year of new dorms? I can’t speak to the long term impact, but others have mentioned to take the first year numbers with a grain of salt.

I mentioned this in another thread and was told they'd fill up to full occupancy soon. Maybe they will, who knows. But selling $80mil in bonds to fund high end expensive university housing thats a bit out of touch with the local rental market isnt good policy. These things are shiny and brand new, feature lululemon and blue 7 pop up shops and are only 28% leased? Yikes! And the other 2 new-ish and nice housing complexes such as Headington are only 70% full.

My gut feeling is that outside of freshman year when it is mandated, most students prefer to live off campus.

These kind of places have been successful at other schools. They should be at OU but everyone has to compete. These aren’t like dorms of old (my days). They have great amenities.

There is a longer-term goal of keeping more students on campus, because all studies show they are more likely to be engaged with the university and graduate.

Key areas that play into academic rankings are retention and graduation rates.

were these dorms really needed?

https://newsok.com/article/5604480/university-of-oklahomas-luxury-housing-beds-go-unfilled

Probably not, but other schools are doing it.

The prices of higher education are not in any way sustainable. There's going to be a major correction that happens at some point, but one school can't buck the trend.

There's a practical reality OU has to face - Cadillac living/dorm facilities in a state wherein, for many families, just *going to college* is a major achievement - no matter how "relatively affordable" our state schools might be.

This is an article from October 2015 that appeared in the OU Daily. The article compared both the cost of living in a dorm and the expense of food to 4 off campus apartments. Apparently a meal program is mandated if in a dorm and a higher price for food is also a reason for more money required to live on campus.
http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-dorm-life-costs-versus-benefits-for-students/article_4866144a-76b3-11e5-b92e-7fedcca32532.html

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/oudaily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/68/86834ac0-76b5-11e5-aee2-df643d0eb9a3/562576cc5321c.image.png

Hard to compare this to living off-campus, and no mention of a requirement to have a meal plan.
Check out the amenities here: https://www.liveatcrossou.com/norman-ok-apartments/cross/amenities/

On-Campus Advantage
Conveniently located on-campus, Cross is just steps away from classrooms, the Gaylord Memorial Stadium and the Lloyd Noble Center.

On-site Staff
Our experienced management and maintenance team members are on-site and readily available to address all resident needs. We understand all issues don’t surface during normal business hours, so we have on-call team members available 24/7.

Individual Leases
You are only responsible for your student’s rent. With individual lease agreements, you don’t have to worry about being tied financially to any roommates or covering their rent if they transfer, graduate or decide to move out for any reason.

Roommate Matching
No roommate? No problem! Roommate matching is completed through the OU Housing and Food office. When a student completes their Housing Contract, they will be prompted to set up a roommate profile. Students can even search for potential roommates in the system!

Fully Furnished & Connected
No moving truck needed! We offer a variety of fully furnished suite that include everything your student needs to move in and feel right at home. Our community also offers free high-speed internet access to help your student stay connected—academically and socially.

Academic Success
Each floor in every building at Cross is equipped with four study spaces! Cross also features a variety of other spaces throughout the property that students will find great for studying.

Simplified Billing
At Cross billing is simple! All charges and payments flow through the OU Bursar.

Storm Shelters
Weather in Oklahoma can present its challenges. Each building at Cross has an above ground, F-5 designed shelter. The shelters allow for full tenant occupancy during a severe weather event. Shelters are equipped with ample Wi-Fi bandwidth and cable TV for up-to-date weather information. Storm shelters also double as amenities such as a DIY workspace and theatre.

My gut feeling is that outside of freshman year when it is mandated, most students prefer to live off campus.

If these dorms are like other university properties and don’t allow students that are over 21 to possess alcohol in their dorm rooms (which I’m sure they are since the campus is dry), that and the other rules that come with living in university housing are major detractors for a lot of college students (as dumb as that sounds). Many students who are excited to experience life away from home and out on their own don’t want to deal with the restrictions and rules of living in university housing after freshmen year when they are required to. While I liked the idea of building more, nicer housing around campus, I think it will take a lone time to catch on and may never be a major draw for the majority of upper classmen though they certainly might be beneficial for freshman eventually if they decide to knock down the towers or they exceed capacity.

^^^^^ And while it is a minority of those affected, the no MMJ on campus is another restriction( even though the anti's claimed students could grow 12 lbs. a year in the dorm). Should it be approved for recreational use in the future that would be another restriction. Isn't tobacco use also banned on campus? While the list provided by Lazio was informative, my daughter lived at THE COTTAGES last year with many of those same amenities. I just do not know if this is a solution that is looking for a problem.

I know students there that are barely affording living in a 1970s off campus house with two other people. Breaking news, young people have no money.

Here is the unit pricing and plans...Prices are per SEMESTER:

300 sq ft studio - $6,100
575 sq ft 2 bed/1 bath - $5,900 per person
875 sq ft 4 bed/2 bath - $3,500 per person (but look how tiny those bedrooms are)

https://www.liveatcrossou.com/norman-ok-apartments/cross/floorplans/4x2-suite-660958/is-premium-view/lease-start-window-id/36740/tab/4/lease_term[id]/5138/space_configuration_id/2/

Looked at the virtual tour of the apartments. It looks like they do not have a full kitchen (just a small fridge and microwave). That's a lot of money to ask for when you then have to also eat out a ton...basically roping you in to sign up for a meal plan as well.

When I was in school I lived in a house just off campus with a full kitchen with a few roommates. Had my own room and spent about $300 a month on rent. After bills for cable/power/etc., probably spent about $1,200-1,500 a semester.

I know students there that are barely affording living in a 1970s off campus house with two other people. Breaking news, young people have no money.

While that is certainly true, there are a lot of young people who's college is being paid for through scholarships and/or by their parents. When given the choice, many will choose to live off campus over on campus options and the restrictions are a large part of that. Like Jersey Boss said, why live on campus with all the restrictions the university puts on you when for the same price or less, you can live in a very nice off campus house or apt with all the same amenities. Proximity to class only gets you so far. Fraternities have a lot of the same amenities that the new on campus housing provides: meals (usually 3 per day), proximity to campus, common areas, study areas, sport areas, etc with similar or lower pricing but they've been struggling with upperclassman occupancy for years and it's gotten progressively since the dry campus policy went into effect. In a shocking twist, 18-23 year old young adults don't really like being told what to do.

Here is the unit pricing and plans...Prices are per SEMESTER:

300 sq ft studio - $6,100
575 sq ft 2 bed/1 bath - $5,900 per person
875 sq ft 4 bed/2 bath - $3,500 per person (but look how tiny those bedrooms are)

https://www.liveatcrossou.com/norman-ok-apartments/cross/floorplans/4x2-suite-660958/is-premium-view/lease-start-window-id/36740/tab/4/lease_term[id]/5138/space_configuration_id/2/

Looked at the virtual tour of the apartments. It looks like they do not have a full kitchen (just a small fridge and microwave). That's a lot of money to ask for when you then have to also eat out a ton...basically roping you in to sign up for a meal plan as well.

When I was in school I lived in a house just off campus with a full kitchen with a few roommates. Had my own room and spent about $300 a month on rent. After bills for cable/power/etc., probably spent about $1,200-1,500 a semester.

Wow, squeezing 2 bedrooms into 575sf, or the even crazier 4 bedrooms in 875sf? And not even have a full kitchen yet still pay a premium? No wonder they arent filling up. Location seems to be the only thing they can offer but its not worth a tiny room, high rent, and restrictive rules.

AVERAGE current cost per person for student room and board at state s school 4 year universities in the US is $10,800 school year. So, given these are new, they don’t seem that much out of the norm, do they? I have friends with kids paying this much or more at other universities.

AVERAGE current cost per person for student room and board at state s school 4 year universities in the US is $10,800 school year. So, given these are new, they don’t seem that much out of the norm, do they? I have friends with kids paying this much or more at other universities.

OU only requires you to pay room and board for your freshman year. You have a lot of options your final three (or more) years and have an opportunity to save some money or live in as nice of a place as you can afford. I'm sure each student and family addresses it differently, but there is no requirement to pay room and board after your first year.

I think the fact that they're only at 25% capacity shows that the amenities they offer are not worth the cost to most students. There are similar off campus options that are a few years old, but have full kitchens and have added "amenities" of allowing alcohol. You better believe that's a factor for college kids.

If the Lululemon store is such a draw, you can live elsewhere and shop there on your way home from class. That's not an amenity of living there.

If the Lululemon store is such a draw,

Gotta catch 'em all?

Plus, in general, upper class men want to live off campus. It was such a dumb idea all the way around.

OU only requires you to pay room and board for your freshman year. You have a lot of options your final three (or more) years and have an opportunity to save some money or live in as nice of a place as you can afford. I'm sure each student and family addresses it differently, but there is no requirement to pay room and board after your first year.

If OU needs to fill these up they will start requiring sophomores to live in on-campus housing. Those that are in the Greek houses can wait to live there junior/senior years.

This project follows the top trends of student housing all over the country. So, all the talk about walkabiliy, location, community, amenities, etc. doesn’t apparently work in Oklahoma.

If OU needs to fill these up they will start requiring sophomores to live in on-campus housing. Those that are in the Greek houses can wait to live there junior/senior years.

Thats great in theory, but for a lot of reasons I think that would be virtually impossible and would be looked upon very unfavorably by the student population and incoming students/parents that don’t want to pay to live on campus for two years. Much easier said than done.

This project follows the top trends of student housing all over the country. So, all the talk about walkabiliy, location, community, amenities, etc. doesn’t apparently work in Oklahoma.

If you can, please provide some evidence to back that up. I’m not implying that you’re wrong, that’s just not what I’ve heard or seen from many non-urban campuses around the country.

This project follows the top trends of student housing all over the country. So, all the talk about walkabiliy, location, community, amenities, etc. doesn’t apparently work in Oklahoma.

Rolls eyes. Walkable projects have been booming in Oklahoma for the last 20 years and one dorm that opened after registration is your evidence that "walkabiliy, location, community, amenities, etc. doesn’t apparently work in Oklahoma."

Rolls eyes. Walkable projects have been booming in Oklahoma for the last 20 years and one dorm that opened after registration is your evidence that "walkabiliy, location, community, amenities, etc. doesn’t apparently work in Oklahoma."

Wait, what? All this complaining about the lack of residents, and it's been about one dorm that opened late compared to the school year that's about to start?

Rolls eyes. Walkable projects have been booming in Oklahoma for the last 20 years and one dorm that opened after registration is your evidence that "walkabiliy, location, community, amenities, etc. doesn’t apparently work in Oklahoma."

Wait.... we can jump to conclusions about how stupid the university and developers are based on very limited time and incomplete information, but jumping to this conclusion is outrageous based on these responses?

Lol. Was being sarcastic anyway. If you read my previous posts you’ll see what I really think about this project. I just get amused at all the quick triggered doom and gloomers.

Thats great in theory, but for a lot of reasons I think that would be virtually impossible and would be looked upon very unfavorably by the student population and incoming students/parents that don’t want to pay to live on campus for two years. Much easier said than done.

I know private universities like TU have this requirement. I don't know what the precedent is for a large public state university but it's something OU could consider if they indeed want (or need) to fill up these new dorms. If you're already paying for on-campus housing freshman year it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to require sophomores to live one more year on-campus.

Not sure if I misread your post, but sorry if I did, Rover.

Anyway, without more info we need to wait 1 or 2 years to really see how these dorms pan out financially. They are really well designed both in pictures and in person so hopefully they turn into an asset for OU. Whether some of the amenities are over-the-top largely depends on costs/profits.

I've been involved in student housing projects before. The timing of completion and marketing of it is pretty different than with regular apartments. They had a narrow window and it wasn't like renewals, etc. So, a rough first year doesn't exactly surprise.

What people don't understand in the differences between these and most apartments is that you don't rent the apartment and then find roommates to share the cost. If your roommate flakes out in the apartment, you are left holding the bag. In these, you are only responsible for your amount. The risk and hassel is virtually eliminated.

I do believe the urbanist theory will prevail... the sense of community with the other students and the school at large vs. off-campus. The walkability because of closeness. The availability of amenities. etc., etc. Now we will see how much we Okies are willing to spend to follow. It works all over the country. Should work here.

What people don't understand in the differences between these and most apartments is that you don't rent the apartment and then find roommates to share the cost. If your roommate flakes out in the apartment, you are left holding the bag. In these, you are only responsible for your amount. The risk and hassel is virtually eliminated.



I don't think that's the case at most of the mid-high end student living options in Norman.

I don't think that's the case at most of the mid-high end student living options in Norman.
I know a few do, but I don’t think most do. I could be wrong.

Hurmph. When I was at OU, if you wanted a phone, you and your roommate(s) were equally responsible for the cost. If someone made a bunch of long distance calls when you were in class, and your roomie(s) bailed, you got to pay. I know this because I did it :-( But as far as the dorm rooms, I don't think you were were responsible for for the other person's cost of the room. But you darn sure were when you rented from an apartment complex. Of course, this was like a thousand years ago....

I know a few do, but I don’t think most do. I could be wrong.

My daughter was at the COTTAGES last year and they had the arrangement of what you speak. I think several of the newer complexes that are marketed toward the student population have similar arrangements.

Some that come to mind, although names/ownership of these places have probably changed hands several times over

Greens
Commons
Traditions
Reserves
Cottages
Campus Lodge

Now we will see how much we Okies are willing to spend

Change "willing" to "able." It isn't merely a matter of building the buildings. The issue of affordability isn't a sophomoric or philosophical one. We have to keep in mind Oklahoma's ecomomic base, average income levels, etc, aren't huge. There is a non-trivial number of people relying on things like OK Promise to *attend school at all*, let alone rent a Cadillac dormitory facility.

Change "willing" to "able." It isn't merely a matter of building the buildings. The issue of affordability isn't a sophomoric or philosophical one. We have to keep in mind Oklahoma's ecomomic base, average income levels, etc, aren't huge. There is a non-trivial number of people relying on things like OK Promise to *attend school at all*, let alone rent a Cadillac dormitory facility.

Student loans cover housing.

I'm sure the new admin is looking at everything and will do the most responsible thing with these apartments. OU brings in a lot of trust fund babies, so offering premium housing seems like a smart move, but considering the competition for that premium housing with some of the fratcastles going up on the south west end of school like FIJI, Sigma Nu, and ATO, the competition is going to be stiff.

Student loans cover housing.

And then linger for years and years.

And then linger for years and years.

Sure. But as I said earlier in the thread, this is a national problem and OU doesn't gain anything by being the one school trying to buck the trend. It makes perfect sense for OU to try to take advantage of the current craziness, even if it isn't sustainable long term.

The students are the consumers, not the university. There is no added value to an OU education by compelling adults to live on campus outside of their first year. To expect the students to borrow because OU is engaged in financial folly is absurd.

I wish my student loans covered housing. It barely covered tuition. Forget the books.

The students are the consumers, not the university. There is no added value to an OU education by compelling adults to live on campus outside of their first year. To expect the students to borrow because OU is engaged in financial folly is absurd.

I think there is added value to having more students living on-campus. More of a sense of community and engagement vs. living miles away. That's just my opinion as someone who lived on-campus in the dorms my first year at OU, then in the frat house for second and third year followed by a rent house near Chautauqua & Cruce for my final two years. I never once drove a car to campus, and would go days without driving anywhere.

The students are the consumers, not the university. There is no added value to an OU education by compelling adults to live on campus outside of their first year. To expect the students to borrow because OU is engaged in financial folly is absurd.

That’s one way to look at it.

The students are the consumers, not the university. There is no added value to an OU education by compelling adults to live on campus outside of their first year. To expect the students to borrow because OU is engaged in financial folly is absurd.

First, I am not saying students should have to live on campus past their freshman year, but I actually think there's been some solid research done to suggest that living on campus improves students experiences and academic success. Maybe incentivizing -- not requiring -- is the better approach. But, yes, we need to reduce student debt as it's an absolute crisis for many graduates.

First, I am not saying students should have to live on campus past their freshman year, but I actually think there's been some solid research done to suggest that living on campus improves students experiences and academic success. Maybe incentivizing -- not requiring -- is the better approach. But, yes, we need to reduce student debt as it's an absolute crisis for many graduates.

Let me reiterate my previous post. I see value in students living on campus their freshman year for the student experience. However my initial response was to the poster who replied that the student can get loans to cover the cost of the housing in order for OU to keep up with the Jones, regardless of sustainability. OU requiring students past the first year to live on campus so they can subsidize luxury apts. on campus is wrong. The cost of a university education is rising and to add to the expense because of a policy of building apts. that are not being used is exploitation. If the college experience and academic success is the criteria, than why are those over 21 or veterans exempt? Last time I checked, 18 not 21 is the age of majority. Here is a radical idea, ban freshman living on campus from having a car on campus. It will free up parking for commuters and upper classmen as well as promoting more interaction between students.

^^^
Yes, I agree with all that. And, think of the urban amenities that would rise up around the dorms if cars were banned for freshman. One can dream...

^^^
Yes, I agree with all that. And, think of the urban amenities that would rise up around the dorms if cars were banned for freshman. One can dream...

Really? Name me a school that bans cars?

I'm not sure a public school could ban cars for students. I'm not sure that they would. Imagine you're considering various schools. You have a car. How much does the 18 year old you want to give up their newly found freedom because someone says urban amenities would rise up around the dorms if you just take that leap of faith.

Really? Name me a school that bans cars?
Stanford, SMU, Vanderbilt. Private I know, but freshman not allowed regardless.

Really? Name me a school that bans cars?

Notice how I finished my post. I wasn’t being serious. If you know me from this board, I don’t like cars in urban environments hardly at all. I live car-less in DFW. Despite my desire to see a society largely rid of cars, I don’t think it’s realistic and I’m not advocating for it. I was just... dreaming.

Having said that, it wouldn’t be difficult to ask freshman to park at a remote lot. I didn’t have a car my freshman year at OU and got by fine. But beyond not providing close parking, I don’t even know how a university could really ban cars.

They can't, nor should they. It may be your dream but others, don't necessarily agree with it. l went to OU and had plenty of reason to have a car for use - one if which was to go to my job which helped me pay for school - as a freshman.

https://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/editorial-pattern-emerging-but-no-clear-plan-from-gallogly/article_5a2e1d3c-6a59-512b-bd57-5bd12bafe7ed.html

Seems like the new administration has no plans on how to freeze tuition and increase wages for staff. In fact no plan has been put forward on their vision of the future.
Concern is being raised that new prez is trying to operate a for profit business and not a university.

https://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/editorial-pattern-emerging-but-no-clear-plan-from-gallogly/article_5a2e1d3c-6a59-512b-bd57-5bd12bafe7ed.html

Seems like the new administration has no plans on how to freeze tuition and increase wages for staff. In fact no plan has been put forward on their vision of the future.
Concern is being raised that new prez is trying to operate a for profit business and not a university.

maybe because any plan wouldn't be able to take affect till next fiscal year and we are only 4 months into the current fiscal year... still plenty of time to work on, and present a plan before next fiscal year. such a plan would probably be introduced to the Board of Regents in the march or april timeframe.

Concern is being raised that new prez is trying to operate a for profit business and not a university.

No. He is trying to operate the university without wasting near as much money while cleaning up a mess that his predecessor would not clean up.

I hope this guy knows what he's doing.

He's certainly rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.