As the number of students seeking education worldwide continues to rise, there is a corresponding escalation in demand for specialized accommodation designed specifically for students, commonly referred to as purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA). Unfortunately, this dramatically increases the competitive nature of the PBSA market, often making it difficult for students who are economically or socially disadvantaged students to secure accommodation. In light of this fact, Reynolds (2020) proposes that investigating non-traditional housing units, such as converted shipping containers and tiny houses, represents an opportunity to provide more varied and budget-friendly housing options for students, which can enhance environmental sustainability and promote eco-friendliness in traditional accommodation options.
Section 1: Possible Solution Two: Non-Traditional housing units.
Reynolds (2020) studied purpose-built student accommodation, investigating exclusivity, precarity, and mobility. The qualitative study used ethnographic research and interviewed 50 students living in such accommodation at two UK universities. Purpose-built student accommodation was found to be exclusive, excluding lower socio-economic students due to high rents and entry criteria. It also perpetuated precarity through strict regulations, such as noise and behavior rules. Furthermore, it contributed to immobility by isolating students from the wider community and limiting their city exploration.
Corfe’s (2019) study investigated co-living as a potential solution to the UK’s housing crisis for young people and students. The study used qualitative methods, including interviews with 30 co-living residents and stakeholders and a review of the literature and case studies. Participants were based in London, Manchester, and Birmingham, with data collected through various means. The study found that co-living offered affordable and flexible housing for young people and students and could address the challenges of high rent costs and limited affordable housing options.
The article by Kim and Kim (2016) examines the feasibility of affordable modular housing units for college students that prioritize habitability. The quantitative study surveys the participants’ preferences for housing layout and amenities. The sample consisted of 118 university students from South Korea, and the setting was a university campus. The results showed that students preferred modular housing incorporating communal spaces, natural light and ventilation, and environmentally-friendly features. Overall, the study highlights the potential for modular housing to address the growing demand for student housing while providing comfortable and sustainable living spaces.
Colebrook (2019) conducted a mixed-methods study investigating students’ perceptions of tiny houses as alternative housing. The study involved 186 participants from a university in the Southeastern US, and data was collected using a self-administered survey with open and closed-ended questions. Results showed that participants had a positive view of tiny houses, appreciating their affordability, environmental friendliness, and minimalist appeal. Most survey respondents indicated they would consider living in a tiny home.
Section 2: Synthesis of Problems, Trends, Concepts, and Gaps.
Reynolds (2020)’s article discusses purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) and its potential negative impacts on university students, including exclusivity, precariousness, and limited mobility. The author argues for more diverse non-traditional housing options to address these issues. The article examines the geographies of PBSA and the trend towards exclusivity and precarity and highlights the potential for these accommodations to worsen inequalities for disadvantaged students. However, the article has limitations in discussing alternative housing options and the broader community impacts of PBSA.
Corfe (2019) analyzes the potential benefits and obstacles of co-living to solve the housing crisis, including affordability, community building, and flexibility. It identifies a growing trend towards non-traditional housing options, especially among students and young people. The article argues that co-living can provide a viable option for those who struggle to access traditional housing. However, it also acknowledges the need to manage shared spaces and potential regulatory barriers efficiently. The article needs to discuss the potential drawbacks of co-living to solve the housing crisis.
Kim and Kim (2016) address the growing concern about affordable housing for college students. The high cost of traditional dormitories limits availability for low-income students, leading the authors to explore using modular housing units as a more cost-effective and habitable option. The article emphasizes efficient and practical design solutions that accommodate the various needs of college students but need more specificity on cost analysis and financial feasibility. The authors suggest that affordable modular housing units designed specifically for college students may solve the rising college housing costs. However, the article needs to provide examples or case studies of implementing non-traditional housing units in universities.
In Colebrook’s (2019) article, the concept of tiny houses as a substitute for traditional housing is analyzed through students’ perspectives. The author discovered that students favor tiny houses due to their affordability, energy efficiency, and versatility. Despite their advantages, the research also discovered drawbacks of tiny houses, including inadequate amenities, restricted privacy, and zoning limitations. Colebrook proposes the development of tiny house communities as a potential solution to address the affordable housing predicament. However, it is noteworthy to acknowledge the limited generalizability of the study’s findings due to the absence of participant information and the neglect of obstacles linked with tiny homes.
Section 3: Comparison of The Different Studies Highlighting Similarities, Differences, And Connections
These studies are all focused on exploring alternative forms of housing for students. Reynolds (2020) examines purpose-built student accommodation and its impact on exclusivity, precarity, and mobility. Corfe (2019) discusses co-living as a solution to the housing crisis. Kim & Kim (2016) propose modular housing as an affordable option for college students, emphasizing habitability. Finally, Colebrook (2019) investigates students’ perceptions of tiny houses as an alternative form of housing. Overall, these studies have a common interest in exploring innovative solutions to the challenges of student housing, with a focus on affordability, accessibility, and livability. They all offer unique perspectives on different alternatives and highlight the benefits and challenges of each approach.
The four studies focus on different aspects of student housing, each with unique perspectives and objectives. Reynolds’ (2020) article examines purpose-built student accommodations (PBSAs) and how they represent exclusivity, precarity, and mobility for students. It highlights how PBSA enforces social inequality by excluding low-income students and the potential for precarious living conditions. On the other hand, Corfe’s (2019) report proposes co-living as a solution to the housing crisis in the UK, focusing on creating more affordable and equitable communal living spaces. Kim and Kim (2016) explore the design of affordable modular housing for college students by emphasizing habitability, proposing that creating appropriate spaces for students is also essential for their academic success. Colebrook’s (2019) dissertation investigates students’ perceptions of tiny houses as an alternative form of housing, highlighting how tiny houses can be considered an attractive and sustainable option that could cater to students’ varied needs.
The four different studies on student housing have a definitive correlation with each other. Reynolds’ comprehensive analysis (2020), which looks into purpose-built student accommodation, sheds light on the problems related to such developments, such as exclusivity, precarity, and mobility. Along the same lines, Corfe’s (2019) assessment of co-living as a practical solution to the UK housing crisis considers the significance of communal residential spaces for students. Kim and Kim’s (2016) research is centered on modular housing as an economical alternative for college students, emphasizing the necessity of habitability. Lastly, Colebrook’s (2019) investigation delves into students’ opinions regarding tiny homes as a novel form of student housing, once again showcasing the importance of affordability. These studies collectively provide crucial insights into understanding the challenging aspects and prospects of granting college students secure, reasonably priced, and comfortable housing alternatives.
Section 4:Summary of Findings and Results of Possible Solution.
In Reynolds’ (2020) article, the study highlights the geographies of purpose-built student accommodation and its relationship with exclusivity, precarity, and mobility. The findings revealed that the high cost of purpose-built student accommodation contributes to exclusivity and precarity, which affects students’ mobility in terms of choice of location and housing type. Corfe’s (2019) report suggests co-living as a possible solution to the housing crisis, citing its potential benefits in affordability, community building, and sustainability. Meanwhile, Kim and Kim’s (2016) article proposes affordable modular housing as a solution to the housing problem college students face. Lastly, Colebrook’s (2019) dissertation explores students’ perceptions of tiny houses as an alternative form of housing and finds that students consider it sustainable and affordable but expressed concerns about its practicality and design. Overall, the research and reports provide insights into potential solutions to the housing problem college and university students face.
References
Reynolds, A. (2020). Geographies of purpose built student accommodation: Exclusivity, precarity and (im) mobility. Geography Compass, 14(11), e12543.
Corfe, S. (2019). Co-living: A solution to the housing crisis. The Social Market Foundation.
Kim, M. K., & Kim, M. J. (2016). Affordable modular housing for college students emphasizing habitability. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 15(1), 49-56.
Colebrook, A. T. (2019). What Are Students’ Perceptions of Tiny Houses as an Alternative Form of Housing? (Doctoral dissertation, Southeastern Louisiana University).
write