Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
WWW.REIS.COM
The Real Estate of College TownsWhich Schools Made the Top Four?
2
WWW.REIS.COM
The Real Estate of College TownsBy Barbara Byrne Denham
Everyone knows that it pays to go to college, but a number of investors also know that it pays to invest in college real estate. Indeed, the student housing sector has grown considerably as more universi-ties have ceded development and management of their housing to the private sector. Most student purpose-built properties have very low vacancy rates and provide a steady stream of rent revenue. Developers have built newer student housing with a number of high-end amenities that few would have considered 20 years ago - including even “lazy rivers” seen in water parks. Moreover, as college enrollment has grown over the last decade, a number of college towns have seen their economies grow robustly prompting developers to build new apartment buildings further off campus to accommodate the rising ranks of graduate students and professors that prefer to live in a more urban-like setting closer to restaurants. While most of these investments have also seen high returns, some college towns have clearly outperformed others.
March 2018
Take Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example, home to the University of Michigan where the student hous-ing rent by the bed increased 7.4% this school year. The rent by the unit increased 1.9% after jump-ing 4.5% last year. Beyond the student housing, the apartment market has soared. The vacancy rate is below 2%; the effective rent jumped 8.5% in 2016 and 3.9% in 2017.
Ohio State’s student housing market also earns honors; student rents have increased 5% per year, on average for four years. Multifamily rents in the Downtown Columbus submarket have climbed more than 47% in five years and are almost $200 more than Ann Arbor’s!
One state east of there, Indiana University has only recently seen inventory growth in its student housing. Its student rent by the bed is half the rate of Michigan’s, and rent by the unit is 21% lower. Rent growth had averaged 2% per year. In the multifamily market, rent growth in Bloomington had been below 2% prior to last year, but it climbed 2.8% in 2017. The University of Illinois in Champaign has higher student housing rents than Indiana but still lower than Michigan’s. Its student housing rents have grown less than 3% per year since 2014, while Champaign’s multifamily rents have grown below 2% per year since 2015.
Four large Midwest state schools, four very different stories. If the differences in these markets are not due to geography, what is driving them? Proximity to an urban center? Admissions selectivity? The football team’s win-loss record? The endowment?
The enclosed report looks at the student housing as well as multifamily housing markets in the same cities for this growing sector of the U.S. economy to uncover how and why some college towns out-perform others. The data shows that there are some consistencies, but by and large, the variables that differentiate the healthier student housing markets from the weaker ones are more idiosyncratic than structural. The results illustrate the sharp differences in college markets that are in metropolitan areas versus those that are more remote. Some student housing rents were impacted by the local apartment market’s rents, but in many cases, they were not. As a rule, however, the findings summarized in the chart below illustrate that submarkets and tertiary markets where a university is based consistently outperformed neighboring submarkets and/or other tertiary markets that are not host to a university by a considerable margin.
Which Schools Made the Top Four?
3
WWW.REIS.COM
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Summary Statistics
Student housing data is reported as “by the bed” or “by the unit.” Most schools have housing that is leased by one or the oth-er, and the data is listed accordingly. For purposes of this study, we created a weighted average of the two rent measures.
The chart below shows the average annual rent growth rates for student housing markets in primary metro submarkets and in tertiary markets. The bars show how student housing markets in urban areas (primary) saw sharper rent growth in 2015 and 2017 (bright blue bars), but student housing markets in smaller towns (tertiary metros) saw higher growth in 2016 (dark grey). On average, student housing rents in primary metros are $200 (29%) higher than in tertiary markets where both den-sity and land costs are lower. Student housing rents are highest in the West and Northeast and lowest in the Southwest. Yet in 2017, student housing rent growth was highest in the Midwest (3.7%) and lowest in the West (1.9%).
Rent Growth for Student Housing & Apartment Markets in College Towns/Submarkets
The chart also includes average annual apartment rent growth rates in the equivalent apartment submarkets versus the average rent growth in other, non-university submarkets within the same primary metros where the universities are based. Finally, the chart includes annual average apartment rent growth rates for tertiary metros where a university is based versus the average rent growth for all other tertiary metros where no university is based. The chart clearly highlights the gap in growth rates between markets where a university is based (dark red and purple) and equivalent non-college markets (lighter red and purple).
How do these markets rank? The enclosed pages show the top student housing markets ranked by two-year rent growth along with the equivalent set of apartment markets also ranked by two-year rent growth. The “brackets” line up somewhat
4
WWW.REIS.COM
Variables that Impact Student Housing Rent
Variable MeasuredIndicator for Student
Housing RentCorrelation Coefficient
Correlation Coefficient: Universities in Primary
Metros Only
Correlation Coefficient: Universities in Tertiary
Metros Only
Student Housing Occupancy growth
Supply and demand of student housing
inventory9% 16% -13%
Apartment RentOverall housing market
conditions23% 21% 23%
Student Enrollment Growth*
University expansion -5% -1% -12%
Percent Admitted* Admissions criteria -27% -34% -18%
Tuition(a) Growth*Relative
competitiveness of the university
-17% 18% -39%
Employment GrowthLocal economic
conditions29% 27% 30%
Employment Growth: Professional and Business Services
Economic conditions: office-based economy
10% -1% 17%
Employment Growth: Leisure and Hospitality
Quality of Life Amenities
16% 27% 7%
(a) includes out of state undergraduate tuition rates only *Most recent data available from US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics: 2016
Source: Reis, Inc. and Bureau of Labor Statistics
What is Driving Student Housing Rent Growth?
Looking at 80 student housing markets that correspond to a primary or tertiary apartment market tracked by Reis, we ana-lyzed a number of data points to see what drives student housing rents. Our data points were included to be representative of an indicator that would impact student housing rent growth and include the following:
in that some student housing markets that have high rent growth – such as Georgia Tech and Georgia State – are located in submarkets that also saw some of the highest apartment rent growth rates – Midtown Atlanta. However, other student housing markets such as Indiana U-Purdue U in Indianapolis incurred a rent decline over the last two years even though the apartment market in Central Indianapolis had rent growth of 13.1%. Thus, there are certain idiosyncrasies to every market that is not readily apparent to the average analyst.
5
WWW.REIS.COM
As the table on page 4 shows, no variable had a high or strong correlation to student rent growth. Local housing and eco-nomic conditions have only a small impact on student housing rent, regardless of whether the university is in a CBD, sub-urban or remote setting. This sounds familiar to those that went to a school in what many regard as a “college town;” that is, where the local university drives much of the area’s economy. These include not only Bloomington, IN (Indiana U) and Champaign, IL (U of Illinois), but also Blacksburg, VA (Virginia Tech), South Bend, IN (U of Notre Dame) and State College, PA (Penn State). For each of these universities, the student housing rent growth outpaced the apartment rent growth and/or the employment growth rate.
However, there were some notable findings of a few small college towns with both strong employment growth and student housing rent including Reno, NV (U of Nevada), Athens, GA (U of Georgia) and Boulder, CO (U of Colorado). The numbers also suggest that universities in small towns that have seen growth in area amenities such as restaurants, hospitality and cultural institutions have enjoyed higher rent growth than those that did not. Some of these stronger student housing mar-kets are in growing areas such as downtown Nashville (Vanderbilt) and Central Austin (U of Texas). But other towns that have had strong leisure/hospitality growth along with student housing rent growth include San Luis Obispo, CA (Cal Poly U), Auburn AL (Auburn U), Charlottesville, VA (James Madison U and UVA) and Davis, CA (UC Davis).
Likewise, universities in primary metros that are a draw for post-graduate employment with a strong or growing office sec-tor have seen higher student rent growth, while those with a smaller office base generally saw lower growth. Metros with a high office employment and high student rent growth include Raleigh-Durham (UNC, NC State and Duke) and Philadelphia (U Penn and Temple). Markets with low or negative office rent growth and corresponding low student rent growth include Louisville (U of Louisville), Oklahoma City (U of Oklahoma) and Buffalo (U of Buffalo). However, there are a number of outliers in this group: Columbia, SC’s office employment declined over the last two years, but the student housing rents at the University of South Carolina grew 7%. Tuscaloosa, AL’s office base declined as well, but U of Alabama’s student housing rent grew 6%.
Looking at other variables such as tuition growth that may be indicative of the universities competitiveness relative to other schools shows little to no correlation to student housing rent. Although, this is likely due to the fact that out-of-state tuition at large state universities is based on a number of factors including the state budget, tax base and admissions policies. For example, many outside California are drawn to the California schools. Tuition growth for UC Davis, Irvine, and Berkeley was in line with most universities, but student housing rent at these universities was well above that of other schools, especially Davis and Berkeley. For similar reasons, enrollment growth had no relation to student housing rent.
Finally, a measure of the university’s admission criteria or status – percent of applicants that are accepted – was somewhat negatively correlated with student housing rent growth. In other words, schools with a tight admissions criteria, or low rate of percent admitted, saw relatively higher student rent growth than those that accepted a high rate of applicants. The University of North Carolina, for example, accepts approximately 31% of its applicant pool, its student housing rent grew 10% from 2015 to 2017, 4% higher than NC State that admits 50% of its applicant pool. Needless to say, there were plenty of outliers in this group including Cornell, Johns Hopkins and USC that all admit a low percentage of its applicant pool yet all saw low student housing rent growth.
For details, see the numbers shown on pages 7 through 11.
Conclusion
The results herein illustrate the sharp differences in college markets. Some universities in metropolitan areas had strong student housing and apartment rent growth while others did not. Some schools in remote areas also saw robust student housing rent growth while others did not. In particular, the findings show that a neighborhood or town where a large uni-versity is based generally outperformed those that did not. Perhaps this reflects how the different visions of planners when setting up their state university systems may have had a significant impact on real estate values which may or may not have added to the appeal of their school. While investors may regard these real estate value differences in an opportunistic way,
6
WWW.REIS.COM
Reno, NV[Univ. of Nevada]
28%
West Philadelphia, PA[Univ. of Pennsylvania]
26%
Midtown Atlanta, GA[Georgia Tech / Georgia State Univ.]
24%
Univ. of Minnesota[Minneapolis, MN]
15%
Cal Polytechnic State Univ. [San Luis Obispo, CA]
14%
Georgia Tech[Midtown Atlanta, GA]
13%
North Seattle / Northgate, WA[The Univ. of Washington]
19%
Central Raleigh, NC [NC State]
19%
Ithaca, NY [Cornell Univ.]
16%
Central Salt Lake City, UT [Univ. of Utah]
16%
Univ. of Pittsburgh [Bellefield /
Shadyside, PA]
11%
Univ. of Nevada [Reno, NV]
10%
Univ. of North Carolina
[Chapel Hill, NC]
10%
Rutgers Univ. [Southwest Middlesex, NJ]
10%Decatur / Avondale, GA [Emory Univ.]
14%
North Tempe, AZ [Arizona State Univ.]
14%
Bellefield / Shadyside, PA[Univ. of Pittsburgh]
14%
Central Indianapolis, IN [Indiana UPUI]
13%
Ann Arbor, MI[Univ. of Michigan]
13%
Baton Rouge, LA [Louisiana State Univ.]
12%
South Columbia, SC [Univ. of South Carolina]
12%
St. Louis City North, MO [Washington Univ.]
11%
Downtown Columbus, OH [Ohio State Univ.]
11%
Downtown Nashville, TN [Vanderbilt Univ.]
10%
Chapel Hill, NC [Univ. of North Carolina]
10%
Williamsburg, VA [College of William & Mary]
10%
San Marcos / North Hays, TX [Texas State Univ.]
10%
Central Austin, TX [The Univ. of Texas]
9%
Albany-Corvallis, OR[Oregon State Univ.]
9%
San Luis Obispo, CA[Cal Polytechnic State Univ.]
9%
Anderson County, SC [Clemson Univ.]
9%
North Philadelphia /Frankford, PA[Temple Univ.]
9%
Santa Barbara, CA[Univ. of California - Santa Barbara]
9%
Downtown Richmond, VA[Virginia Commonwealth U]
9%
Boise, ID[Boise State Univ.]
8%
Norman, OK[Univ. of Oklahoma]
8%
South Bend, IN[Univ. of Notre Dame]
8%
Mid-City / West Adams Los Angeles, CA[U of Southern Cal]
8%
Florida State Univ.[Tallahassee, FL]
10%
Colorado State Univ.[Fort Collins, CO]
9%
Temple Univ.[North Philadelphia /
Frankford, PA]
9%
Univ. of CA - Berkeley[North Alameda, CA]
9%
Univ. of Notre Dame[South Bend, IN]
8%
Univ. of Colorado[Boulder, CO]
8%
Univ. of Florida[Gainesville, FL]
8%
Univ. of South Carolina[South Columbia, SC]
7%
Auburn Univ. [Auburn, AL]
12%
Univ. of Massachusetts[Springfield, MA]
7%
Syracuse Univ.[Syracuse, NY]
7%
The Univ. of Tennessee[Central / SE Knoxville, TN]
7%
Vanderbilt Univ.[Downtown Nashville, TN]
7%
Duke Univ.[West Durham, NC]
7%
Univ. of Michigan[Ann Arbor, MI]
7%
Clemson Univ.[Anderson County, SC]
7%
Virginia Commonwealth Univ.[Downtown Richmond, VA]
7%
Virginia Tech[Blacksburg, VA]
8%
Pennsylvania State Univ.
[State College, PA]8%
Univ. of California - Davis
[Davis, CA]8%
Emory Univ.[Decatur / Avondale, GA]
8%
Univ. of Nebraska[Lincoln, NE]
8%
Univ. of Georgia[Athens, GA]
8%
James Madison Univ.[Charlottesville, VA]
8%
many might look at the lower rent levels and growth rates between, say, SUNY Binghamton and UCLA as a benefit in main-taining affordability for students at all income levels.
In any case, the numbers above confirm that there is no straightforward determinant of what drives student rent growth. Many investors in this asset class know this because they do their homework, know their markets, and carefully consider the comprehensive data.
Barbara Byrne Denhan is an Economist in the research and economics department at Reis, the team responsible for the firm’s market forecasting, valuation, and portfolio analytics services. Throughout her 20-year career, Barbara has written a number of white papers on the commercial real estate market.
Top Ranked* University-Based Apartment Markets
Top Ranked* StudentHousing Markets
*ranked by two-year rent growth
7
WWW.REIS.COM
Universities in Primary Metropolitan AreasListed in Alphabetical Order
Uni
vers
ity
Stud
ent h
ousi
ng re
nt
grow
th
2015
-201
7
Apa
rtm
ent r
ent g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Occ
upan
cy g
row
th 2
015
- 201
7
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7
Enro
llmen
t Gro
wth
U
nder
grad
* 2
015-
2016
Perc
ent A
dmit
ted*
20
16
Tuit
ion
grow
th*
2015
-201
6
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: P
rofe
ssio
nal
Bus
ines
s Se
rvic
es
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: L
eisu
re a
nd
Hos
pita
lity
Arizona State University 5% 14% 7% 6% 8% 83% 4% 6% 7%
Clemson University 7% 9% 0% 4% 5% 51% 4% 3% 6%
College of William & Mary
5% 10% 10% 2% 0% 34% 3% 3% 4%
DePaul University -2% 3% 0% 2% 3% 72% 4% 2% 6%
Duke University 7% 7% 8% 6% 0% 11% 4% 6% 7%
Emory University 8% 14% 5% 5% -12% 24% 3% 5% 8%
Georgia Institute of Technology
13% 24% 22% 5% 6% 32% 6% 5% 8%
Georgia State University 4% 24% 22% 5% 0% 57% 2% 5% 8%
Indiana U-Purdue U-Indianapolis
-3% 13% 12% 4% 11% 70% -1% 2% 3%
Johns Hopkins University 4% -2% 9% 2% 7% 14% 4% 3% 2%
North Carolina State University
6% 19% 29% 6% 2% 50% 6% 6% 7%
Ohio State University 6% 11% 11% 0% 3% 49% 3% 5% 0%
Rutgers University 10% 4% 0% 4% 6% 58% 3% 3% 6%
Syracuse University 7% 6% 2% 1% 0% 48% 4% 5% 1%
Temple University 9% 9% 9% 3% 5% 56% 3% 4% 5%
*Most recent data availableSource: Reis, Inc., BLS and US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics
8
WWW.REIS.COM
Uni
vers
ity
Stud
ent h
ousi
ng re
nt
grow
th
2015
-201
7
Apa
rtm
ent r
ent g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Occ
upan
cy g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7
Enro
llmen
t Gro
wth
U
nder
grad
* 20
15-2
016
Perc
ent A
dmit
ted*
20
16
Tuit
ion
grow
th*
2015
-201
6
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: P
rofe
ssio
nal
Bus
ines
s Se
rvic
es
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: L
eisu
re a
nd
Hos
pita
lity
Texas State University 7% 10% 15% 7% 6% 71% 7% 10% 9%
University at Buffalo 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 60% 10% -2% 4%
University of Arizona 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 76% 6% 2% 4%
University of California - Berkeley
9% 5% 3% 6% 1% 17% 5% 4% 8%
University of California - Davis
8% 5% 1% 6% 2% 38% 5% 9% 8%
University of California - Irvine
5% 2% 5% 5% 3% 39% 5% 5% 7%
University of Connecticut 6% 4% 0% 1% -18% 53% 7% 1% 3%
University of Kentucky 2% 2% 0% 3% 7% 89% 6% 0% 4%
University of Louisville 0% 6% 6% 4% 4% 72% 3% 2% 4%
University of Maryland 3% 6% 3% 2% 1% 45% 5% 2% 4%
University of Michigan 7% 13% 2% 3.8% 0% 26% 4% 2% 8%
University of Minnesota 15% 8% 9% 3% 14% 45% 7% 2% 5%
University of New Mexico -2% 6% 4% 2% 1% 58% 3% 6% 3%
University of North Carolina
10% 10% 5% 6% 2% 31% 1% 6% 7%
University of Oklahoma 0% 8% 3% 1% 7% 78% 5% 2% 5%
Universities in Primary Metropolitan Areas - Continued
*Most recent data availableSource: Reis, Inc., BLS and US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics
9
WWW.REIS.COM
Uni
vers
ity
Stud
ent h
ousi
ng re
nt
grow
th
2015
-201
7
Apa
rtm
ent r
ent g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Occ
upan
cy g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7
Enro
llmen
t Gro
wth
U
nder
grad
* 20
15-2
016
Perc
ent A
dmit
ted*
20
16
Tuit
ion
grow
th*
2015
-201
6
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: P
rofe
ssio
nal
Bus
ines
s Se
rvic
es
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: L
eisu
re a
nd
Hos
pita
lity
University of Pennsylvania
5% 26% 6% 3% 19% 10% 4% 4% 5%
University of Pittsburgh 11% 14% 6% 1% 1% 54% 3% 1% 4%
University of South Carolina
7% 12% 6% 3% 2% 65% 3% -2% 6%
University of Southern California
4% 8% 0% 4% -24% 18% 4% 3% 8%
University of Tennessee 7% 7% 6% 3% 2% 76% 3% 5% 3%
University of Texas at Austin
7% 9% 8% 7% 0% 39% 0% 10% 9%
University of Utah 2% 14% 6% 6% 4% 81% 4% 4% 7%
University of Washington 2% 19% 13% 6% 3% 53% 2% 7% 8%
Vanderbilt University 7% 10% 56% 7% 0% 12% 2% 9% 11%
Virginia Commonwealth University
7% 9% 15% 3% 2% 79% 4% 5% 6%
Washington University in St Louis
4% 11% 1% 2% 3% 17% 4% 3% 2%
Wichita State University 0% 1% 5% 1% 0% 95% 4% 21% 5%
Yale University 3% 5% 6% 1% 1% 7% 4% 2% 5%
Universities in Primary Metropolitan Areas - Continued
*Most recent data availableSource: Reis, Inc., BLS and US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics
10
WWW.REIS.COM
Uni
vers
ity
Stud
ent h
ousi
ng re
nt
grow
th
2015
-201
7
Apa
rtm
ent r
ent g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Occ
upan
cy g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7
Enro
llmen
t Gro
wth
U
nder
grad
* 20
15-2
016
Perc
ent A
dmit
ted*
20
16
Tuit
ion
grow
th*
2015
-201
6
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: P
rofe
ssio
nal
Bus
ines
s Se
rvic
es
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: L
eisu
re a
nd
Hos
pita
lity
Auburn University 12% 5% 1% 7% 6% 78% 3% 1% 12%
Baylor University 2% 6% 5% 5% 2% 44% 5% 2% 10%
Boise State University 2% 8% 8% 9% 6% 80% 8% 14% 12%
California Polytechnic 14% 9% 3% 5% 4% 31% 0% 5% 9%
Colorado State University
9% 8% 8% 6% 4% 81% 4% 4% 6%
Cornell University 6% 16% 0% 1% -1% 15% 4% -3% 9%
Florida State University 10% 6% 1% 4% 2% 56% 0% 7% 6%
Indiana University 5% 3% 1% -2% 6% 78% 2% -4% 4%
Iowa State University 2% 3% 0% 1% 5% 87% 1% 1% 1%
James Madison University
8% 2% 4% 4% 2% 73% 3% 3% 7%
Louisiana State University
3% 12% 3% 0% 3% 77% 13% -4% 5%
Michigan State University
6% 4% 1% 4% 2% 66% 4% 2% 1%
Missouri State University 6% 4% 2% 3% 6% 86% 2% 4% 7%
Oklahoma State University
0% 0% 0% -1% 14% 75% 5% -2% 5%
Oregon State University 6% 9% 2% 5% 21% 78% 10% -6% 12%
Universities in Primary Metropolitan Areas - Con-
tinued
Universities in Tertiary Metropolitan AreasListed in Alphabetical Order
*Most recent data availableSource: Reis, Inc., BLS and US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics
11
WWW.REIS.COM
Uni
vers
ity
Stud
ent h
ousi
ng re
nt
grow
th
2015
-201
7
Apa
rtm
ent r
ent g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Occ
upan
cy g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7
Enro
llmen
t Gro
wth
U
nder
grad
* 20
15-2
016
Perc
ent A
dmit
ted*
20
16
Tuit
ion
grow
th*
2015
-201
6
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: P
rofe
ssio
nal
Bus
ines
s Se
rvic
es
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: L
eisu
re a
nd
Hos
pita
lity
Pennsylvania State University
8% 5% 0% 3% 1% 51% 3% 10% 4%
Purdue University 3% 4% 7% 2% 5% 59% 0% 1% 5%
SUNY at Binghamton 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 42% 10% -5% 4%
Texas Tech University -7% 3% 1% 4% 6% 63% 6% 12% 9%
University of Alabama 6% 2% 1% 1% 11% 54% 4% -4% 6%
University of Arkansas 4% 6% 11% 2% 5% 60% 7% 0% 5%
University of California - Santa Barbara
5% 9% 7% 2% 2% 33% 5% -4% 5%
University of Colorado
8% 6% 8% 5% 8% 80% 3% 1% 6%
University of Florida 8% 6% 1% 5% 4% 48% 0% 10% 5%
University of Georgia 8% 4% 2% 6% 3% 53% 3% 16% 6%
University of Illinois 5% 2% 0% 1% 4% 66% 2% 3% 2%
University of Iowa -6% 7% 8% 3% 10% 81% 2% -1% 4%
University of Kansas 3% 4% 2% 1% 4% 93% 4% -2% 6%
University of Massachusetts
7% 1% 1% 2% 7% 58% 6% 2% 3%
University of Missouri 4% 2% 2% 1% 3% 78% 3% 3% 3%
Universities in Tertiary Metropolitan Areas - Continued
*Most recent data availableSource: Reis, Inc., BLS and US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics
12
WWW.REIS.COM
Uni
vers
ity
Stud
ent h
ousi
ng re
nt
grow
th
2015
-201
7
Apa
rtm
ent r
ent g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Occ
upan
cy g
row
th
2015
- 20
17
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7
Enro
llmen
t Gro
wth
U
nder
grad
* 20
15-2
016
Perc
ent A
dmit
ted*
20
16
Tuit
ion
grow
th*
2015
-201
6
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: P
rofe
ssio
nal
Bus
ines
s Se
rvic
es
Empl
oym
ent G
row
th
2015
-201
7: L
eisu
re a
nd
Hos
pita
lity
University of Nebraska 8% 4% 6% 2% 5% 76% 2% 4% 6%
University of Nevada 10% 28% 2% 10% 7% 79% 1% 8% 5%
University of Notre Dame 8% 8% 5% 3% 0% 20% 4% 5% 4%
University of Oregon 6% 8% 2% 4% 0% 74% 4% 10% 6%
University of Southern Mississippi
1% 6% 5% 4% 4% 58% 3% 0% 5%
University of Virginia 6% 2% 4% 4% 11% 30% 5% 3% 7%
University of Wisconsin 0% 7% 11% 3% 0% 58% 12% 4% 6%
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
8% 5% 6% -1% 5% 73% 4% 2% 2%
Universities in Tertiary Metropolitan Areas - Continued
*Most recent data availableSource: Reis, Inc., BLS and US DOE Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics
Contact us for more information... Call us toll free (US) 800.366.REIS (7347) Visit www.reis.com www.twitter.com/REIS_CRE
Reis, Inc. 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 [email protected] www.linkedin.com/company/reis
©2018 Reis, Inc. Any use of this document or portions thereof, including reproduction, modification, distribution or republication, without the prior written consent of Reis, is strictly prohibited.
