OU President Gallogly

[Rover]

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.

[BG918]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Thomas Vu]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[securityinfo]

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....

[Jersey Boss]

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.

[Thomas Vu]

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

[SoonerDave]

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.

[hoya]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[jerrywall]

Student loans cover housing.

And then linger for years and years.

[hoya]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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.

[Thomas Vu]

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

[BG918]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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.

[dankrutka]

^^^
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...

[jonny d]

^^^
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?

[Midtowner]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

Really? Name me a school that bans cars?

Stanford, SMU, Vanderbilt. Private I know, but freshman not allowed regardless.

[dankrutka]

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.