Student Housing and House Prices

silvercar

Manchester is 4k a year; add to that food, transport, books, entertainment...and you probably need £70-100 a week that you are at uni. x 36=2500-3600 (assuming they don't pay rent to their parents at home and eat free in the holidays.) So total needed is 6.5-7.6k. Student loan, outside London is about 5k (full amount, assuming parents pay up if their offspring get less), so students need to find 1.5-2.6k a year -either working during term or holidays or extra from their parents.

wageslave

lostinrates wrote: »

yeah, our rooms were good...tbh, I would have gone with cheaper though, had there been the option, my friends in Oxford were paying less, and in London. But we had those little boxy wet rooms, and couldn't complain about the standards. Food was extra though, and washing sheets etc was up to us...do they do that for people? I've just asked DH if the scouts did it at Oxford and he can't remember. I hope so, otherwise I have a horrid feeling he slept on the same sheets for 3 years :eek:

You can pay for a laundry service in Scotland or possibly I imagined it. I bliddy hope not. I do know you have to provide the sheets.

The food is all stodge ( they have sent me some sample menus). I am discussing fresh vegetables with the poor sod in charge.

And you thought Jewish mothers were bad.........

CLAPTON

tara747 wrote: »

There is no housing shortage in the UK.

There is a shortage of social housing because since the 1980s it has been sold off on the despicable Right To Buy scheme and not replaced.

Most 'old' universities have had their land for years and years, waaay before they were funded by govt.

University-provided student accommodation should at least cover its own costs so no taxpayer subsidy should be required (unlike Right To Buy, or Right To Be Subsided By The Taxpayer as I like to call it).

p.s. Slightly OT, but nobody has mentioned the ridiculous govt '50% into HE' target, so I hope you don't mind me making a tiny amendment to this bit: The current practice of people going [STRIKE]away [/STRIKE]to Uni was probably appropriate when only 5% of people went to Uni but now that nearly 50% do it not quite so viable.

there is no housing shortage in the UK?

where do you live?

CLAPTON

silvercar wrote: »

Student loans are meant to enable all to be able to afford to go to university. Extend it to all and some would just be using it to sit around and drink alcohol and take drugs, rather than travel the world.

My point here is that many (and just read many many many posts on the bulletin boards) say how much the Uni experinece is important (as opposed to the education)

now if that's so (and it was for my children) then why should the tax payer fund that experience when the tax payers who don't benefit are funding the beneficiaries.

A point worth thinking about or maybe not.

olly300

I disagree that the land where student halls are being built would be used for social housing. I went to 2 universities and now live near a third. The first was a city university, the second a campus one and the third where I'm now living is a city one.

At the first uni the student halls that were built when I lived in the city where built on land that no one wanted to use. There was lots of council owned terrace houses in the area that where boarded up that the local councils were in the process of demolishing and rebuilding as new homes.

In addition there was also a lot of private housing that was terraced housing that no-one wanted to buy. One of my mates ended up renting a terrace house and the landlord tried to sell it to her for 11k. She refused to buy it due to the area it was in and the amount of building work required on the house. She did some investigation and found that all the terraced houses in the area had the same faults so while no one wanted to buy them people would rent them.

At the campus university when the university was created in the 60s they had plans to build lots of halls on the land they were given. In the end they built a 3rd of the halls that were planned and so the land was left empty. Then in the late 90s when universities started to expand student numbers they built more. If they hadn't built the halls the land would have remained empty due to it being in the country surrounded by farmers fields and separated from the nearest village and local town by the farmers fields.

Where I'm currently living in London new student halls are being built right over a railway station. While I've lived at the back of a railway line 2 minutes walk from a railway station, and know someone else who lived 5 minutes from a rail station over railway lines where they are building the student accommodation is not where people want to live. I suffered from having to hear the announcements from the train station and had to complain with other residents to get them turned down. The other person I know suffered from the building moving every time a train went passed.

Plus the council refused to give the developers planning permission for anything other than student halls as there is also nowhere for people to park and the pavement can't be enlarged so it's dangerous for children. There are other new developments in my borough and other boroughs nearby. Some of those are specifically social housing but they are not as badly placed as the student halls.

misskool

wageslave wrote: »

£3k something a term nearer four. That's ensuite and meals provided and vacatingy Christmas and Easter.

Then there is travel and books and god knows what else....

OK, she could sleep in a tip and live on pot noodles and it would cost £10k a year. I think not.

I want to know her sheets are clean and she is getting something, anything close to her five a day. We are talking about a girl that can't boil a kettle without a set of instructions. More to the point we are talking about my girl.

I would be cheaper moving with her

Teach her to cook and move to self-catering halls

The meals in halls are never edible and the students often spend more money eating out anyways.

CLAPTON

olly300 wrote: »

I disagree that the land where student halls are being built would be used for social housing. I went to 2 universities and now live near a third. The first was a city university, the second a campus one and the third where I'm now living is a city one.

At the first uni the student halls that were built when I lived in the city where built on land that no one wanted to use. There was lots of council owned terrace houses in the area that where boarded up that the local councils were in the process of demolishing and rebuilding as new homes.

In addition there was also a lot of private housing that was terraced housing that no-one wanted to buy. One of my mates ended up renting a terrace house and the landlord tried to sell it to her for 11k. She refused to buy it due to the area it was in and the amount of building work required on the house. She did some investigation and found that all the terraced houses in the area had the same faults so while no one wanted to buy them people would rent them.

At the campus university when the university was created in the 60s they had plans to build lots of halls on the land they were given. In the end they built a 3rd of the halls that were planned and so the land was left empty. Then in the late 90s when universities started to expand student numbers they built more. If they hadn't built the halls the land would have remained empty due to it being in the country surrounded by farmers fields and separated from the nearest village and local town by the farmers fields.

Where I'm currently living in London new student halls are being built right over a railway station. While I've lived at the back of a railway line 2 minutes walk from a railway station, and know someone else who lived 5 minutes from a rail station over railway lines where they are building the student accommodation is not where people want to live. I suffered from having to hear the announcements from the train station and had to complain with other residents to get them turned down. The other person I know suffered from the building moving every time a train went passed.

Plus the council refused to give the developers planning permission for anything other than student halls as there is also nowhere for people to park and the pavement can't be enlarged so it's dangerous for children. There are other new developments in my borough and other boroughs nearby. Some of those are specifically social housing but they are not as badly placed as the student halls.

so your conclusion is that 2 million students (not all of course live aways from home) make absolutely no impact on the non-student housing situation.

You have chosen not to mention anywhere I can check so I'll at least mention a few places
- Manchester... whole swaths of Fallowfields, Moss-side fringes
-Sheffield - as per original poster, Crooks and all the land of the halls on very desirable residential land
-London lots near UCL and N7 / N19 London Met, SW1 (Imperial ) ...

vivatifosi

Thought I'd chuck this into the mix as nobody has mentioned it yet. There has been a big change in the development of halls in the last few (10ish?) years due to the slow growth of PFI in the sector. Many new halls developments are not owned by the uni's at all, but by private developers. Back in 2002 Unison (VI, I know) stated that fees for halls were up to 22% higher in private developments. In 2006, the NUS found that rates had risen 23% over two years. Is it any surprise, then, if a growing number of students impinges on local housing markets if halls are no longer at a reasonable rate?

http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/veronicaking/273560.aspx

Fast forward to now, and another alleged 23% rise over 3 years, the NUS is calling for a rent rate cap:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/uk/8584415.stm

tara747

wageslave wrote: »

£3k something a term nearer four. That's ensuite and meals provided and vacatingy Christmas and Easter.

Then there is travel and books and god knows what else....

OK, she could sleep in a tip and live on pot noodles and it would cost £10k a year. I think not.

I want to know her sheets are clean and she is getting something, anything close to her five a day. We are talking about a girl that can't boil a kettle without a set of instructions. More to the point we are talking about my girl.

I would be cheaper moving with her

wageslave wrote: »

You can pay for a laundry service in Scotland or possibly I imagined it. I bliddy hope not. I do know you have to provide the sheets.

The food is all stodge ( they have sent me some sample menus). I am discussing fresh vegetables with the poor sod in charge.

And you thought Jewish mothers were bad.........

Umm, you are coming across as very overprotective - the bits highlighted in bold are a bit worrying. Is your daughter totally incapable of doing things for herself? You say she can't even boil a kettle (please tell me you're exaggerating - but if not, now might be the time to teach her how to look after herself).

There is nothing worse than parents hovering in the background over their 'children' who are 18 years old i.e. adults in the eyes of the law. If they're not attending admissions interviews with them (!!!!!!) they're writing to their local MPs asking them to try to get little Johnny/Mary a place when they've been turned down. I have a lot of friends working in the HE sector and the stories they tell you are embarrassing. I think parents are infantilising their sons and daughters. If they're not emotionally and mentally capable of looking after themselves, for goodness' sake don't let them go into HE!!

I would guess that your daughter is far less worried about all of this than you are. So relax and enjoy her last few months at home before starting university. There is massive competition for places this year anyway, she might not even get in and then you will have nothing to worry about (*joke!*).

p.s. you mention travel costs. Surely for £4k a term (shockingly expensive imho) she will be on campus??

silvercar wrote: »

Manchester is 4k a year; add to that food, transport, books, entertainment...and you probably need £70-100 a week that you are at uni. x 36=2500-3600 (assuming they don't pay rent to their parents at home and eat free in the holidays.) So total needed is 6.5-7.6k. Student loan, outside London is about 5k (full amount, assuming parents pay up if their offspring get less), so students need to find 1.5-2.6k a year -either working during term or holidays or extra from their parents.

Which is very achievable - lots of students work and manage to earn enough to cover the shortfall between their loans and living costs.

tara747

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is no housing shortage in the UK?

where do you live?

In a city, perhaps yours is more overcrowded than mine though.

CLAPTON wrote: »

My point here is that many (and just read many many many posts on the bulletin boards) say how much the Uni experinece is important (as opposed to the education)

now if that's so (and it was for my children) then why should the tax payer fund that experience when the tax payers who don't benefit are funding the beneficiaries.

A point worth thinking about or maybe not.

This point has been made over and over. You could also say the same about healthcare - why should healthy living people fund repeated NHS treatment for those who smoke, drink and overeat? That's also an 'experience' that those people have chosen. Why should childless people fund statutory maternity pay, child benefit etc etc etc for those who have children? That's an 'experience' too. Why should those who never take part in outdoor activities fund rescue operations for people who get stuck in the Cairngorms in the middle of January? That's an 'experience' too.

The fact is that graduates earn a lot more than non-graduates on average, and pay higher taxes. Now, with tuition fees, they also contribute a significant amount to the cost of their higher education.

If you think that too many people are ENTERING higher education in the first place (as a direct result of govt policy to expand student numbers) then I agree.

CLAPTON wrote: »

so your conclusion is that 2 million students (not all of course live aways from home) make absolutely no impact on the non-student housing situation.

You have chosen not to mention anywhere I can check so I'll at least mention a few places
- Manchester... whole swaths of Fallowfields, Moss-side fringes
-Sheffield - as per original poster, Crooks and all the land of the halls on very desirable residential land
-London lots near UCL and N7 / N19 London Met, SW1 (Imperial ) ...

So if these same 2 million people didn't go to university and instead left school at 18 and went to find work, wouldn't the net effect on housing be the same or similar??? Or do you propose that people should only work in their home town and live with their parents?