Stanford University is moving ahead with a plan to construct a four-building residential complex for its graduate students, despite the fact that the new housing development would exceed the construction limits of the university's agreement with Santa Clara County.
If Stanford gets the county's permission to amend the 2000 agreement, known as the General Use Permit, the new housing would accommodate 2,400 "beds" (not housing units) and would be built in the Escondido Village area abutting Serra Street and Campus Drive, between Thoburn Court and Escondido Road. The university also announced in a statement Thursday that it also plans to eventually make intersection improvements at Campus and Serra.
In the statement, Stanford officials said that they finalized the project's site, height and density after several months of conferring with members of the graduate student community. David Lenox, campus architect, said that the administration "listened carefully to the feedback we received from throughout campus and changed the proposal in ways that benefit the project and should ease any concerns people have expressed."
"Given how desperately this housing is needed, we are ready to move forward and submit our proposals," Lenox said.
If things go as planned, the new housing would be constructed over three years and be available for occupancy by 2019. This assumes, though, that the county Board of Supervisors will agree to modify the 2000 agreement, which specified the amount of new construction Stanford can perform on unincorporated county land.
The agreement sets a cap of 2 million square feet of new academic uses (and academic support uses); 2,000 new beds in student housing; 350 new beds for postdoctoral scholars and medical residents; and 668 new beds for faculty and staff. The agreement also imposed a policy of "no net new commute trips," which triggered Stanford's aggressive "transportation demand management" program.
Now, Stanford is reaching the limit of its county cap. All but 581 of the allowed beds have been constructed, which means the county would have to approve the addition of 1,450 new housing beds to the permit before Escondido Village development can be built. The university indicated Thursday that it plans to pursue revisions to the permit this week.
While the document has helped to govern Stanford's expansion for the past 15 years, Stanford officials made a case earlier this year that the university's needs have changed over that time. Jean McCown, director of community relations at Stanford, said in a March statement that the university did its best to project in 2000 what would be "the appropriate allotment of housing for different campus groups."
"But that forecast 15 years ago has not met the need to accommodate more students on campus," McCown said.
The university had begun preliminary talks with county officials last year about modifying the housing allotment in the permit, McCown said at the time.
According to Stanford spokespeople Lisa Lapin and Kate Chesley, the new buildings will range from six to 10 stories in height, similar to existing buildings at Escondido Village. They will replace existing two-story buildings, which house about 400 students, for a net addition of about 2,000 people/beds. Stanford plans to relocate impacted students to other Stanford housing, either in another section of Escondido Village or in other locations inside and around the campus.
The new units will mostly house single graduate students or couples without children, according to the Stanford announcement. Initial plans also include premium studio apartments, two-bedroom apartments and "junior studios." The university is also considering amenities such as a cafe, exercise spaces, cinema, dance studio, study rooms and offices.
The proposed development at Escondido Village is one of several major residential projects that Stanford is moving ahead with. Construction is currently under way for two residential projects in Palo Alto, both of which would accommodate faculty: a 70-unit housing complex at El Camino Real and California Avenue, and a 180-home development on California Avenue, next to the College Terrace neighborhood.
Comments
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:38 am
on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:38 am
@ "approve the addition of 1,450 new housing beds" and "the new units will mostly house single graduate students or couples without children, according to the Stanford announcement"
Aside from the issue of Stanford Univ. circumventing county zoning rules . . .
Really? Stanford is going to limit new housing to single graduate students and those couples with no children? How does that work with the Fair Housing Act? Will Stanford police couples [portion removed] to ensure they do not have children? And when couples decide to have children anyway, where will all these 1,400 or more children go to school? Palo Alto elementary schools are maxed out - kids are already being overflowed from neighborhood schools like Escondido to other PAUSD elementary schools. 1400 is size of 3-4 entirely new elementary schools. Is Stanford planning to build new schools along with that new housing? Or will they just build new housing and make the schools the everyone else's problem?
Menlo Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:51 am
on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:51 am
Glad to see that the buildings will range between 6 and 10 floors! It's about time that this area begins to build UP.
Barron Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:57 am
on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:57 am
I hope Stanford gets the change in the rules that it needs. It is Stanford that makes Palo Alto the destination that it is and provides the value for our homes.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:04 am
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:04 am
Once again, Stanford really believes it is such a superior institution that it is above the law.
It has been ILLEGAL in the State of CA for nearly forty years to not allow children in any sort of housing development. It is illegal to have singles-only or "no children" housing.
Then again, as stated by Rules Don't Apply to Stanford, if they followed the law and allowed children in this proposed housing, would they build another on-campus elementary school, build another middle school and high school in Palo Alto to provide for the overflow? Ethically, that is what they should do. Some counties require housing developers to build additional schools to provide for this.
However, Stanford has very rarely, if ever, followed the rules of ethics. Ditto for laws.
College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:21 am
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:21 am
I've talked to a lot of prospective graduate students who are concerned about being able to afford to accept Stanford's offers due to housing. A lot of them are single, so I don't see anything wrong with Stanford's plan. Perhaps there is already adequate housing for the families.. don't know. Most will not have a car and will not impact traffic in Palo Alto.
Charleston Meadows
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:51 am
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:51 am
No one with or without children is being refused housing or excluded. Stanford already offers housing for Students with children. There are different housing units to address the needs of different categories of students on campus: undergrads, grad students, single, married, students w/ children, etc. This project is intended to build housing for the types of students where the need is anticipated to exceed the existing supply. Currently students are being overflowed to rental units in the surrounding community, so this is just to accommodate them ON CAMPUS, reducing the impact on city streets and public transit. Planning ahead is the responsible way to manage the University's housing needs, rather than waiting until the problem is at hand. These additional housing units seem to me to be a win:win for the students who will need housing [portion removed.]
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:20 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Will these students eat in a facility dining room or other eating areas just for them? Or will they be buying groceries at off-University sites? Will they be using automobiles to get around campus and area? Will they use these autos to get to the nearest TJ's or Safeway or gas station? or to party in town? Will they clog El Camino? The City of Palo Alto has to step in and get answers. Palo Alto is experiencing massive traffic problems already-----and the county wants to reduce lanes on El Camino. This is "traffic madness".
Registered user
Atherton
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Wow - the Palo Alto area desperately needs more housing and now the ONLY entity in the area that provides housing for both its employees and its customers/students wants to build more housing on its property and the NIMBYs are screaming NO.
This housing reduces the local housing shortage and is being built in a location which will not require its residents to drive to classes, to eat or to exercise.
Thank you Stanford.
Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:36 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Good thing we have a plentiful water supply.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:40 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:40 pm
When I was a graduate student over a decade ago, I living in a rented house in Palo Alto with several roommates. With rents where they are, there's no way I could do that today.
I'm proud to have a good job that lets me own my own home where I can raise my kids, even in one of the most expensive housing markets in America. But I also know that not everyone has that option, especially not students or workers at the beginning of their careers. Graduate students in particular are sacrificing their chance to make money now in order to have a more impactful career later - something that benefits all of us.
Stanford is trying to do the responsible thing for their students and the community here. I hope the County allows them to do it.
Midtown
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:42 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:42 pm
Peter Carpenter @ Atherton - rather than name calling other posters "NIMBY", try to address the issues raised: traffic caused by supporting improvements (even though the 3000+ beds are local to the campus, all the employees of the cafes, restaurants, shops needed to support those additional 3000 beds will increase traffic), and the traffic caused by the students/faculty occupying the 3,000 beds (almost all will be traveling off campus on a periodic basis). And with the Valley transport agency reducing the lanes on El Camino, traffic is already expected to be bad.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:52 pm
The is no indication that Stanford plans to increase the number of students but rather the number of ON campus housing for its students.
No increase in students means no increase in "the employees of the cafes, restaurants, shops needed".
Such housing will reduce the impact on housing in Palo Alto and will reduce the traffic in Palo Alto created by students who previously lived off campus.
Registered user
Nixon School
on Jan 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm
@Rules Don't Apply to Stanford:
You wrote, "Will Stanford police couples to ensure they do not have children? And when couples decide to have children anyway, where will all these 1,400 or more children go to school?"
Where are you coming up with these numbers? The article says Stanford would have to build an additional 1450 beds. Given historical birth rates in that age group (approx 100 per 1000), there will be an estimated 15 new babies -- not 1400.
Approximately 27% of Stanford Business School graduates remain in the bay area and I suspect the percent is similar for other programs.Web Link
Many of those probably end up in SF, Mountain View, or other Bay Area locations. So even if all 1450 eventually do have kids at a 100% replacement / birth rate, only a small fraction will end up in Palo Alto schools.
If the on-campus housing is not built, most of them will be living in the same areas regardless -- but they'll just have to commute.
I don't know what the solution is to Palo Alto's overcrowding schools, but you are grossly exaggerating the impact that these additional units will have.
Registered user
Nixon School
on Jan 15, 2016 at 1:44 pm
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2016 at 1:44 pm
I can't edit my post, but it should read 150 new babies -- not 1400...
My point is still the same -- most of these graduate students will scatter around the country and Bay Area after graduating.
Forcing these students to commute from off-campus will not impact where their kids go to school in any meaningful way.
Evergreen Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 1:57 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 1:57 pm
What Stanford wants, Stanford gets. Resistance is futile and will be crushed without quarter.
College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2016 at 2:16 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 2:16 pm
If Stanford builds more it should provide relief for Palo Alto - allowing grad students currently renting off campus to move back and free up space for others. THese are the kinds of projects we need in Palo Alto. We don't need to build a lot of new housing (can't really, we're built out), but getting Stanford to house its own is a great step.
Is the location the best though? Are there other places, say on the backside of campus that could work better?
Evergreen Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 3:27 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 3:27 pm
The response here is so palo alto. Stanford is going to build housing for its students on campus and naturally we have the naysayers and stanford haters complaining. Some of the complaints border on the ridiculous ( claims of housing discrimination!).
Also many commenters seem to forget that this land is on county territory, so palo alto may not have a say in this. [Portion removed.]
Barron Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 5:17 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 5:17 pm
[Post removed.]
Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2016 at 5:39 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 5:39 pm
We own the water treatment plant. What's our capacity for more sewer hook-ups?
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 15, 2016 at 6:37 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 6:37 pm
There is a 3 bdrm, 1-1/2 bath home on our block that currently houses SEVEN Stanford students, mostly grad students, and only one of them has any sort of job. That one guy works part- time; the others are 100% supported by parents. Five of them drive new and fairly expensive cars, only one drives a car more than five years old.
These kids are paying $8500/ month rent between them. There are two occupants in the master bedroom, one in each of the other two small bedrooms, two in the family room, and one sleeping in the one-car garage! They share a driveway with three other houses, so six out of the seven cars are on the street.
When one of them bought an electric car, she demanded the landlord put in a charging station, which he did, but of course he then increased the rent.
My question is, how can this be legal for seven non-related people to be sharing 1-1/2 bathrooms?? How can it be legal to live in a windowless garage? There is tiny window in the side door, but it gets no sunlight. There also are no back or side yards or even a patio!
In a situation where each person is spending over $1,200 to live in a tiny hovel, is it less expensive to live in new, on-campus housing? Would there be enough parking space there?
Evergreen Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 6:53 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 6:53 pm
"The[sic] is no indication that Stanford plans to increase the number of students..."
That's shoe #2. Get more living space, enroll more students, collect more tuition. Nobody has ever successfully accused Stanford of missing an opportunity to make a buck.
Evergreen Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm
[Post removed.]
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:18 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:18 pm
My best friend lives in one of the three other houses that share a driveway with this little house.
Her son, a junior at Paly, talks to them frequently on weekends.
Also, the landlord himself used to live there, until 2011, when he moved elsewhere. But he had previously lived there for many years, and was well- known on the neighborhood, still has friends here, etc.
In addition, three of the students complain A LOT to the neighbors about their rent ( all are from another state or country), and ask questions about the going rate for rents locally, what houses sell for, and related topics.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:32 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:32 pm
So I can't build a 500 sq ft secondary dwelling in my 10,000+ sq foot lot, but Stanford can build whatever the heck they want on extra inches of space? And @Peter Carpenter thinks I'm a NIMBY?
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:32 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 7:32 pm
[Post removed.]
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 15, 2016 at 8:19 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 8:19 pm
Is it legal to build ten stories high now?
- just curious.
Being wealthy Stanford students, of course many will have cars.
Of course the university wants to increase the size of their student body.
of course there will high traffic impact on those of us on the Embarcadero Rd area.
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 15, 2016 at 8:27 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 8:27 pm
@Overcrowded: We're just enjoying the benefits of rapacious capitalism.
Evergreen Park
on Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 pm
[Portion removed.] Ten stories tall should check his "facts". Over 85% of stanford students really euve some form of financial aid-- they are not wealthy.
Web Link
Please provide proof for your claims about cars and stanford wanting more students.
And obviously if start ford builds more on campus housing, that will decrease the amount of student traffic on embarcadero!!!!!
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm
Sounds like the types of apartments planned make them unsuitable for families with kids--i.e. studios, junior studios. It would be in the area where there's already a lot of campus housing.
I don't see how it would impact Embarcadero particularly--presumably the idea is to reduce the number of students who live off-campus--so it should be a slight reduction in commuter traffic.
The one way I could see an impact on schools is if students leaving off-campus housing created vacancies that were then filled by families with kids.
But mostly, I suspect, this is an attempt by Stanford to attract grad students who'd otherwise turn SU down because of the extremely high housing costs here.
Stanford
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:30 pm
on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:30 pm
For those of you who worry about the married grads, the main article on the Stanford News website covers that aspect well. While grad students with families have been a diminishing admixture in recent years, they remain very active in representing their situations. Grad students with families are being well represented in this planning and design.
For those who seem to interpret this project as an additional population, these isn't a growth in total student population...these students have been here already. Their "burden" on regional infrastructure has been present for decades, merely at slightly different addresses off-campus, in some cases. Their parking issues are internal to the campus; their traffic issues are internal to the campus; these new housing structures are "in-fill", a density increase, in already existing housing locations. Someone complained about sewage demand increases...they've been here already. Now they'll merely flush at a different address on the same systems.
Downtown North
on Jan 16, 2016 at 12:14 am
on Jan 16, 2016 at 12:14 am
To all the posters above who claim that these people were already here living in housing off campus so building housing for them on campus will not increase the population - you are totally wrong. New housing IS more housing. The population will increase. They will move out of off campus housing and open up spaces for more people. That means more population = more traffic = more crowded schools = more pollution = less park space/public amenities = decreased quality of life yet again. Every added person uses water, produces trash, takes space and destroys more of the natural environment. And one day, if we wish to live sustainable (and enjoyable) lives then we need to get serious about how many people we can cram onto the face of the planet.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 16, 2016 at 1:01 am
on Jan 16, 2016 at 1:01 am
cm,
I really don't see how campus housing at Stanford is going to have a major impact on the planet--indeed, increased density is supposed to be better for the planet--i.e. New York City is efficient in terms of use of space and energy.
Students who live on campus will commute less, not more. Unless Stanford increases its enrollment, there shouldn't be a major impact on Palo Alto--I'd guess that a fair number of students who don't live on campus aren't living in Palo Alto either.
I oppose a lot of high-density projects in Palo Alto because our grid just isn't that big, but on-site housing in this case seems like a reasonable idea.
University South
on Jan 16, 2016 at 1:12 am
on Jan 16, 2016 at 1:12 am
Let's claim it for our ABAG requirements. If we're going to be putting strains on our infrastructure, we might as well get some credit for it.
Palo Verde
on Jan 16, 2016 at 2:14 am
on Jan 16, 2016 at 2:14 am
Ok, I looked it up. Stanford hasn't been projected to bump against their 2.1 million gallon per day sewer allocation until around 2022. Much beyond that, I suppose we'll see it coming up in our bathtubs.
another community
on Jan 16, 2016 at 1:07 pm
on Jan 16, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Housing and rental pricing are through the roof. The area obviously needs more housing. The University is proposing to alleviate this problem and provide affordable housing to students so they can get a great education. What is the problem exactly? They have to ask for an amendment to their General Use Permit? Seems like a good idea to me.
Palo Verde
on Jan 16, 2016 at 2:37 pm
on Jan 16, 2016 at 2:37 pm
The problem is overpopulation and the carrying capacity of the earth.
Think globally, act locally.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 16, 2016 at 3:40 pm
on Jan 16, 2016 at 3:40 pm
Let me get this straight, Palo Altans go into a fit when they think any out of town agency tells them to allow housing, but they want to be able to dictate whether or not other places do?
Downtown North
on Jan 16, 2016 at 3:55 pm
on Jan 16, 2016 at 3:55 pm
"The area obviously needs more housing."
Granting that for the sake of argument, it should be infilled in our areas of egregiously least efficient land use: the oversize single-family properties in Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, Los Altos Hills. Then we proceed to build out the single family residence areas of the remaining cities. Real estate prices will fall as overbuilding in the area makes it a less desirable place to live.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 17, 2016 at 2:30 pm
on Jan 17, 2016 at 2:30 pm
Stanford started with 600 students and now has 16,000, so I am concerned that 2,400 more beds means even more students.
When I was looking at colleges Stanford was 6,000 undergrad and 6,000 grads -- the growth in my lifetime seems excessive.
Evergreen Park
on Jan 17, 2016 at 3:12 pm
on Jan 17, 2016 at 3:12 pm
Mark- you consider a 33% increase of students over who knows how many years excessive? Stanford us a world class University and needs to grow and change with the times. [Portion removed.]
Southgate
on Jan 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm
on Jan 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm
"Let's claim it for our ABAG requirements."
We could wish. Years ago, in a routine self-snookering, Palo Alto annexed the Stanford Research Park where the jobs are, but not the main campus where the housing is. Therefore we get charged for Stanford's jobs but no credit for its housing.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jan 17, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Registered user
on Jan 17, 2016 at 5:51 pm
", in a routine self-snookering, Palo Alto annexed the Stanford Research Park where the jobs are, but not the main campus where the housing is."
Yes, and the Shopping Center - both of which generate huge tax revenues for Palo Alto.
Who was snookered? Santa Clara County.
Southgate
on Jan 17, 2016 at 9:31 pm
on Jan 17, 2016 at 9:31 pm
"Yes, and the Shopping Center - both of which generate huge tax revenues for Palo Alto."
Thank you. How could I forget that albatross: jobs, traffic, and an enduring drag on downtown retail.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jan 18, 2016 at 9:22 am
Registered user
on Jan 18, 2016 at 9:22 am
Just remember that Palo Alto without the Research Park, without the Shopping Center and without the Hospital would be just as crowded and built up as it is today because all three of these entities are on Stanford land and they would be empty spaces unaccessable to the public. Palo Alto would be much poorer without the taxes from the Research Park and the Shopping Center and medical care would be miles away.
No jobs, no taxes and no health care. Sort of like Gilroy.
And if any Palo Alto residents really wants to live in Gilroy there are lots of less expesive homes there - try it.
Atherton
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:07 am
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:07 am
Reading/scanning through the comments, one point that isn't mentioned is that Stanford is looking for an amendment to what is effectively a contract.
While I support Stanford's request and think the change has merit, this is an opportunity for the county to get something back if it agrees to the amendment. Personally, I think the county should try to acquire additional funding for public transportation projects, schools, fire district and/or sewer/water infrastructure as a condition to the change.
Everyone on this thread knows that if the roles were reversed (the county wanted an amendment to the agreement), Stanford would definitely want concessions.
The county should do the same.
Downtown North
on Jan 18, 2016 at 1:05 pm
on Jan 18, 2016 at 1:05 pm
"Just remember that Palo Alto without the Research Park, without the Shopping Center and without the Hospital would be just as crowded and built up as it is today..."
Can you please provide documentation for this claim other than subjective speculation?
Registered user
Atherton
on Jan 18, 2016 at 1:09 pm
Registered user
on Jan 18, 2016 at 1:09 pm
"Can you please provide documentation for this claim other than subjective speculation?"
Yes - read the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and look at what is already built in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is already almost fully built out and removing the Reasearch Park, the Hospital and the Shopping Center would simply place greater demands on Palo Alto's very limited real estate.
Significant tax revenues and vital services would be lost with no obvious gain to the city.
Barron Park
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:04 pm
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:04 pm
[Portion removed.]
Yes, Stanford University will be building on their own property, BUT, they are a giant contributor to negative cumulative impacts to Palo Alto. Stanford claims they have a successful TDM in place, however, they are only measuring on campus and not their Palo Alto neighborhoods. Stanford go'ers park their cars in Palo Alto neighborhoods and residents have seen them pull out their skateboards and/or bicycles to get them their last mile to Stanford and because of these actions, RPPP is needed and residents have to pay to park in their own neighborhoods.
Downtown North
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:54 pm
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:54 pm
"...read the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and look at what is already built in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is already almost fully built out and removing the Reasearch Park, the Hospital and the Shopping Center would simply place greater demands on Palo Alto's very limited real estate."
Sorry, this makes no sense.
@Jane: Our enclaves of the highly privileged fret mightily that they may be forced to host accommodations for "those" citizens in their towns if the neighboring lesser communities fail to go skyscraper (safely out of view from the enclaves, of course).
Mountain View
on Jan 19, 2016 at 1:12 pm
on Jan 19, 2016 at 1:12 pm
Yay! Now Palo Alto West will look more like Palo Alto East!
One thing that is notable for Boulder and CU-Boulder is the student housing skyscraper student dorms.
Web Link
Atherton
on Jan 19, 2016 at 6:30 pm
on Jan 19, 2016 at 6:30 pm
"One thing that is notable for Boulder and CU-Boulder is the student housing skyscraper student dorms."
Same at Ohio State.
Go, Stanford! Build! Don't let them stay ahead of us.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2016 at 11:33 am
on Jan 20, 2016 at 11:33 am
If this new housing is built, perhaps the university would give the option to those without children to live in this new development and not *restrict* residency only to graduate students. Young post-docs, for example, don't always enjoy or abide by the university's more family-minded housing. Some really don't seem to like living around children: crying babies, kids running around outside, having to obey quiet hours on school nights for kids, etc. Some of them seem so unhappy, they flout the rules: loud stereo music and video games into the night, and other "adult" noises most parents would prefer their kids not to hear. It seems that those without children just might be happier living in an environment with other adults where their lifestyle won't be cramped by kids, and maybe the rent would be a better deal. Might the university set aside some units for those who simply don't want to live around children? Such individuals and couples should be given an option. It would probably make for better neighbors all around.
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 20, 2016 at 12:04 pm
on Jan 20, 2016 at 12:04 pm
[Post removed.]
University South
on Jan 20, 2016 at 12:22 pm
on Jan 20, 2016 at 12:22 pm
[Post removed.]