Abstract
Based on the insights highlighted in this report, there is nothing wrong with providing students with luxury housing. In fact, it provides parents and students with comfort and security. However, a problem arises when there are too many luxury developments that make it difficult for most students to get affordable housing.
Similarly, there is a problem when the line between education and luxury is increasingly blurry because of too much emphasis on luxury, as opposed to learning, and when Columbia’s heritage is undermined through the destruction of old historical buildings. Furthermore, the inability of the city’s infrastructure to cope with the rapid rate of luxury housing developments in Columbia compounds this problem.
The City Council has not helped to alleviate this issue either because it has stakes in the problem through the collection of new taxes from developers. From a student’s perspective, this report is an appeal to the City Council to stop further approvals of luxury development complexes because they only compound the housing problem in the community.
Introduction
Columbia, Missouri is largely a relatively small town that thrives on the back of a dynamic education sector. For a long time, three educational institutions have made a huge impact on the community – Columbia College, Stephens College and MU (Columbia University 1). These colleges have had a long-term impact on the community by attracting more than 40,000 post-secondary students in the metropolis (Maneater Editorial Committee 2).
However, the city and its education institutions have had trouble housing all these students. One would think that since Columbia, MO, is an old college town, the City Council would have preempted the housing needs of these students and solved them, but it has not done so effectively. Some observers characterize the state of the housing sector in the jurisdiction as “dismal” and “embarrassing” (Maneater Editorial Committee 2). Others also say profit and expansion needs have surpassed quality concerns, as authorities struggle to address the housing problem of students in Columbia.
Luxury housing is an emerging trend in Colombia’s student housing sector that has come up to solve this trend. For example, recently, developers built three new student luxury housing units, which include Aspen Heights, The Domain and The Lofts at 308 Ninth (Seldin 2).
Some of the luxury amenities that these housing units have include pools, wood floors, and full swing gold simulators. The provision of these amenities has forced some developers and property owners to charge students higher than average rents. This paper argues for the deceleration, or the complete stop, of new luxury housing developments in Columbia, MO, because it disrupts the student community, destroys the city’s heritage, and strains its infrastructure.
Particularly, this report appeals to the City Council to stop this trend by preventing the issuance of new permits to property developers. It also advocates for the increased awareness of the impact of luxury house development not only to the student community of Columbia, but also to the wider resident community. Before outlining the details of this appeal, it is first important to understand the scope of the large-scale luxury housing developments in Columbia, MO.
Background
The growth of luxury housing units in the student community of Columbia, MO, began as a response by local developers to help resident universities cope with the high number of students who had no place to live on-campus. Since 2011, private developers have constructed more than 3,800 housing units in Columbia for its student population (Maneater Editorial Committee 1). Although this number is high, it inadequately addresses the housing challenge of students who live in Columbia.
The prospect of this problem persisting has forced some observers to encourage more developers to continue building new housing complexes in the hope that they would continue to cash in on the inability of universities to keep up with its enrollment numbers (Columbia University 1).
Different types of luxury housing in Columbia, MO, have changed the student environment in ways that were previously unimaginable. The picture below shows a glimpse of a luxury room for students in Columbia
Developers who buy property in Columbia and start new housing units in the region have pushed the trend to develop new luxury housing units in the region. For example, the family that owns Brookside Housing complex bought a parcel of land in April, 2015, and plans to build more luxury student housing complexes in the region, which is increasingly gaining the reputation of a dominantly expensive area to live (Casablanca Mediterranean Grill formerly occupied the land).
Other interested developers that are pushing the trend to develop luxury student housing units are Park 7 Group (a New York-based development firm), MacAlester Park LLC’s, and Fields Holdings LLC (just to mention a few). From 2011 to 2013, they have collectively built close to 4,000 housing units in Columbia, MO (Eligon 2).
Competition among developers is pushing the envelope further, as they strive to outshine each other in providing luxurious amenities to students. This is why these luxury houses have tanning salons, Jacuzzis, and massage parlors (among other features commonly found in hotels and not learning institutions). The housing facilities also have washers and dryers that virtually communicate to students whenever they want, and 24-hour workout facilities that have gadgets that allow students to easily access their emails (Seldin 2).
Outdoor pools also have bars and cabanas. Some student housing complexes, such as the Domain at Columbia, provide students with different types of games, such as golf simulators, and a theater room where they could catch up on the latest movies. In one of its websites, owners and managers of Domain boast that they have the largest resort style pool in Columbia and the most over-the-top amenities (Eligon 7).
Eligon interviewed one director of interior design at Sixth River Architects, who said, “we are always trying to make it cooler and more hip than the last one” (8). Developers have also used some of the technologies to create better learning environments for the students by increasing collaboration among students through virtual platforms. They have also helped students to undertake their classroom activities at the comfort of their rooms.
Nonetheless, the scale of luxury that characterizes these modern housing units is at a scale that most students have not witnessed before. However, the rapid growth of these units poses unique challenges to the student community. We highlight the reasons for the City Council to stop this trend below
Dividing Student Population
Many social experts say, how students live during their college years is as important as the formal education they get while in school (Tungekar 3). Indeed, the time they spend away from their homes, and with roommates, helps them to forge some of the most valuable social relationships in their lives. However, there needs to be a thriving student community for such positive developments to occur.
The growth of luxury housing developments has altered this narrative by isolating students who cannot afford luxury housing from those who can (Tungekar 3). Indeed, the affordability of housing within Columbia is an important issue for most students. The development of luxury student housing worsens this issue because it makes most houses unaffordable for most students. For example, The Maneater Editorial Committee says most students pay high rent because of granite countertops, and rooftop pools (1-5). Some housing units also have in-house tanning salons, which increase the cost of housing within the campus. Some of the student population does not have enough money to rent out these facilities.
The starting rent for a housing unit in downtown Columbia (District Flats, Brookside Downtown, Midtown by Brookside, and The Lofts) is as follows:
- District Flats – $950;
- Brookside Downtown – $659;
- Midtown by Brookside – $589;
- The Lofts at 308 Ninth – $799.
To explain the high cost of rental income in the new luxury units located in Columbia, it is important to use a case study of Todd Housing. Todd Housing is a new residential unit for students located in the University of Missouri. Housing units developed in this residential area fetch a starting rental income of $850 from the students. This rate locks out most students from living in such quarters (Tungekar 3). Comparatively, off-campus housing could fetch a rental income of $500, which is relatively affordable for most of the student population.
Most of the notable student luxury rental housing units in downtown Columbia include District Flats and Brookside Downtown. Other housing units are Midtown by Brookside and Lotts on Broadway. The median rent for a one, or two, bedroom house in these locations starts from $589 to $950. Comparatively, the price for a one, or two, bedroom studio apartments in an off-campus housing facility is $554.
This price range shows that the luxury student apartments could be twice as expensive as the conventional housing structures. This difference makes them out of reach for most students in Columbia, MO. Stated differently, the expensive housing structures hurt the student population and the general student life.
Students are not immune from blame when we analyze the growing number of luxury housing developments in Columbia, MO, because they often want to hang out in fancy cafeterias, or “cool” student lounges. This quest makes some places look “cooler” than others are, thereby increasing the demand for real estate in these regions and ultimately leading to a similar rise in rental income. Even though students play a huge role in promoting this gentrification process, it is ironic that most of them do not have the income to support the “fancy lives” they desire. A combination of these factors has made some observers worry about the demise of affordable housing in some universities (Columbia University 1).
Indeed, they also fear that the shift towards high-end housing has increased the rental charge across the board. Even old-fashioned halls, where students share bathroom facilities and kitchens, are not immune from this trend.
Affordable houses are often outside the campus vicinity, thereby forcing many students to commute long distances, to, and from, the school. Such students often miss contributing to social activities in the campus. Furthermore, they suffer from a shortage of housing where they live because most of the available housing units are in high demand. Moreover, their housing units are often in a state of disrepair.
Shoddy construction standards and the lack of modern amenities are also characteristic of such housing units. In this regard, we find that the problem at Columbia is not student housing, but rather the lack of available affordable housing facilities in the region. The inability of students to afford some of these luxury housing has also affected student enrollment numbers because student enrollment trends in 2020 reveal that new enrollment numbers are declining.
The housing problem could be a contributor. Some observers believe this trend would continue in the next few years (Columbia University 1). This fact notwithstanding, developers are continuing to flood the market with expensive housing units, without consideration for the students, or without establishing a strong demand for them within the student population. Instead, ongoing developments of luxury apartments have added to the growing human (student) traffic in downtown Columbia, as most students look for cheaper housing (Columbia University 3). Residents and visitors in Columbia are also suffering from inconvenienced trips downtown because of this trend.
The differences in prices between the traditional student housing structures and the luxury housing units have created assumptions about the kind of people who rent out these two types of houses. Some students believe that most of the people who live in the upscale houses are proud and have a sense of entitlement (Tungekar 3). People who strongly hold such opinions argue that even though a student may come from a wealthy family, campus life should have some connotations where they are supposed to live without some of the luxuries they like.
If the trend towards luxury student housing continues unabated, the expensive housing structures could quickly become a problem for universities and the surrounding communities. For example, in 2008, the University of Missouri saw the potential effects of a rapid growth of luxury apartments at the university after more than 40% upperclassmen expressed their interest to live in the University. Coupled with a similarly large number of freshmen who wanted to live in the facilities, the university realized it needed more than 1,000 beds to cater for this demand (which it did not have).
There is also a misconception among housing developers about the fact that Columbia will always have an expanding student population to occupy the newly constructed housing units. However, observers say that the most universities in Columbia are reaching their carrying capacities and cannot take any more students (Columbia University 1). Some universities, such as the University of Missouri, are already reporting low student enrollment numbers.
The City of Columbia needs to pay attention to this trend and note that there is more value in facilitating the construction of affordable housing units for the students, as opposed to allowing corporations and out-of-state players to construct luxury-housing units in the community. Indeed, Columbia is a college town and not a commercial metropolis for investors to get maximum profits.
The high rent charged by the owners of the luxury student units has also contributed to the growing student in Columbia. This is especially true for students who do not depend on their parents to pay rent. However, there is also another argument that rental incomes are high because most students can afford them (Columbia University 1). For example, proponents of this view often say international students and students from wealthy families increase the demand for luxury housing in Columbia.
Therefore, developers are not at fault for meeting this demand. This argument is false because some students only choose to rent out such facilities because of peer-pressure, or because they are frustrated to look for houses and believe, they have no option, but to pay for expensive apartments. Nonetheless, cashing in on wealthy students or those who chose to pay the high rents is a divisive strategy because, eventually, the country misses talent, as students who can afford luxury housing choose to live in these educational institutions, while those who cannot afford the same standards of living shy away.
Destroying Columbia’s Heritage
Most of the luxury housing developments in Columbia have come at a huge cost to the community’s heritage because developers have destroyed old buildings to give room for new luxury developments. Columbia’s rich history and culture are slowly eroding under the pressure of these development activities. For example, new luxury housing units have led to the destruction of national heritage sites, such as the Gordon Building and Shakespear Pizza’s former home.
Alternatively, the construction of TODD in Columbia destroyed a small part of the city’s charm. James Condominium is also set to suffer the same fate because the construction of a student-housing unit is set to take on the same parcel of land that the 104 year old home stands on. Additionally, the building where the Quinton’s Bar and Britches Clothing are located is also under consideration for demolition to pave way for modern housing units. This building is a landmark in Columbia. In the past, residents knew it as the Columbia Daily Tribune Building. Constructed in 1924, the building acquired the status of a federal historic site.
Contractors are also set to raze down an old bus station in Columbia to give way for the construction of an ultramodern student-housing unit. This pattern of destroying some of Columbia’s oldest historical buildings is a concern for the college community, as it is destroying its heritage. Relative to this assertion, Deb Sheals, a historic preservation consultant said, “I think we are nickel-and-diming our way out of having a historic district downtown” (Eligon 17).
Concerns about the destruction of a community’s heritage because of ongoing construction are not far-fetched because other cities have also grappled with the same problem. For example, in Madison, WI, residents of a student community fought an attempt by a contractor to set up a luxury student unit in the Mansion Hill Neighborhood because it would erode the community’s heritage (Iverson 3). They were particularly concerned about the developer’s proposal to tear down an old apartment building called the Highlander House because it was a key part of the community’s heritage (Iverson 3).
Other areas that have fought the same battles include a student community in Minneapolis, where students and community residents were apprehensive about a developer’s intention to tear down two old buildings and construct a new apartment block. Some community members have also started seeing student housing as an enemy of family housing in Columbia because most developers are moving to cash-in on the trend to supply more luxury housing facilities.
The backlash from community members comes from the trend by contractors to use land that they would have used for residential housing to develop student housing instead. Comprehensively, many observers believe that the rapid growth of the high-end housing market in Columbia has stolen the charm that is commonly associated with college towns. Relative to this fact, Eligon says, “It is sort of this mass-produced, soulless luxury” (14).
Strain on Community Infrastructure
The ongoing trend to expand the number of luxury student housing departments is causing a strain on the community’s water and sewer infrastructure. While it is possible to expand, or improve, Columbia’s infrastructure to accommodate new developments, there is an unmatched balance between the rate of constructing new developments and the rate of expanding water and sewer infrastructure.
Furthermore, the city council does not have adequate funds to match the pace of infrastructure development with the rate of housing development. For example, projections to expand the sewer and electric infrastructures alone are set to cost $19.75 million (Maneater Editorial Committee 5). Based on such budget estimates, there is a lot of concern regarding how local authorities would finance future infrastructure expansions.
Part of the problem is the willingness of the City Council to approve most new developments without properly understanding how such developments would affect the community in the long-term. Students are unable to resist the influence of development companies in their community because some of these organizations have powerful financial incentives that either force local authorities to “look the other way,” or to ignore the long-term impact of their development activities in the community.
Partly, disorganization in some of the student union bodies makes them unable to form a strong opposition to this trend (Maneater Editorial Committee 5). For example, their disorganization caused the lost bid to stop developments at Aspen height’s project. The Missouri Students Association has lost the will to pursue student’s interests in this regard.
Politics also plays a significant role in exacerbating this concern because the city council recently voted down a proposal to increase funding for future infrastructure developments by five votes to two. This vote prevented the local authority from undertaking electric and sewer upgrades. It also prevented it from using $50 million of its resources to fund other projects. In this regard, politics has a significant impact on the community’s future student housing market because most developments in downtown Columbia are its products.
The City Council is also less likely to issue building permits until it resolves the funding crisis. Some officials of the City Council are not worried about using the council’s resources to fund future infrastructure expansions because they believe failing to do so would slow down other developments in the community. Some of the people who hold such an opinion include Mayor Bob McDavid and Second Ward Councilman Michael Trapp, who were the only city council officials who voted for the expansion of the city’s water, electric, and sewer infrastructure because they believed the current developments would lead to sewer overflows and urban sprawls. Proposals to use taxes only, to fund infrastructure developments, were also defeated in the city council meetings.
Some of the city council officials regret voting down such proposals because of misinformation about the issue, or inadequate information about the issue. For example, a Fifth Ward Council woman, Laura Nauser, admitted to falling victim to such issues. The lack of transparency in how the city council would fund infrastructure developments also affected how the council members voted because they believed the movers of some of the proposals carefully thought them out. Some council members also felt that some of the funding sources could come from alternative sources of income, other than the city council’s internal revenues.
For example, one council member, Nauser, argued that $10 million required to fund the county infrastructure could come from bonds. He also believed that $1 million needed to fund the expansion of the community’s water infrastructure could come from Columbia’s water and Lights Reserved Funds. Other Council members believe proposals to expand the county’s infrastructure are wrongly designed because developers should shoulder some of the costs associated with infrastructure expansions.
Ian Thomas, the Fourth Ward Councilman voted down proposals for the county council to fund infrastructure developments because he believed developers should shoulder part of the cost of infrastructure expansion. People who share the same view argue that that city council should revise development fees and zoning rules to allow developers to contribute to funding the city’s infrastructure developments.
In line with this proposal, the Downtown Columbia Leadership Council had a responsibility to look for innovative ways to fund infrastructure expansions, bearing this view in mind. The leadership of the council has since proposed raising council fees to fund for infrastructure developments. However, this proposal still faces opposition from some council members who believe local authorities should not subject some residents of the county who do not live in downtown areas to the proposed fee increments. At the same time, some people believe that developments in the downtown area benefit everybody and the citywide fee increments should apply to all.
The Third Ward Councilman, Karl Skala is another member who supports the proposal to increase developer’s fees to find alternative sources of funds to increase funding for infrastructure projects. For example, in 2014, he proposed an increase in development fees for construction companies. However, this proposal was defeated. The proposal was supposed to see a 50% increase in development fees, from $0.5 to $1 per square foot, for contractors of residential housing units.
Contractors building commercial units were supposed to incur a development fee increase, from $1.5 to $2 per square foot. The fee variation depended on whether the project had a small, or large, impact on the community. Although the proposal was defeated, some council members still believe local authorities could review it in the future and possibly implement it as well. Nonetheless, other council members argue that such proposals are unacceptable, even in the future, because they have the potential of discouraging developers from setting up new buildings in Columbia. The debate about how the city council will fund its infrastructure developments continue, but politics stands out as a significant factor in understanding how infrastructure developments affect the luxury housing market for the student community in Columbia.
Too much emphasis on Leisure as opposed to Academics
The growth of the student luxury market in Columbia has mostly emphasized on leisure, as opposed to academics. Although this view is debatable, it is difficult to ignore the paradigm shift that these housing units have created on student life on campus. While past housing designs used to provide “moderate” comfort for students, luxury housing units have focused more on providing “over the top” luxury for students.
Furthermore, they have blurred the line between academics and luxury. For example, some clubhouses also act as study centers for the students. These units also provide students with the option of pairing their tablets with flat screen television screens (Tungekar 3). Administrators have expressed their concerns regarding such levels of luxury because they fear they would shift the students’ focus from academic into luxury living (Tungekar 3).
Some students have emphasized the sentiments highlighted in this section of the report by saying that living in luxury apartments is more like having a “long vacation.” For example, according to Mr. Heiland, 19, (a student living in one luxury housing complex in Columbia), living in a luxury apartment is like a dream come true. “I am not going to class – that is how I look at it,” he says (Eligon 12). The diagram below shows the kind of environment that such students live in
As developers try to outshine one another on the type of luxury they could offer their customers, there are growing concerns from different quarters about the social consequences of large-scale up market housing units in colleges, which border on the delicate balance between comfort and education. Concisely, the spas, tanning salons, and Jacuzzis that characterize luxury-housing units are different from the traditional on-campus residential halls that only gave students room to be comfortable enough to live (survive).
Furthermore, they could double up as classrooms and lecture halls. Luxury housing complexes have changed the entire learning narrative by making colleges more like social centers, as opposed to learning centers. The President of Dober Lidsky Mathey (a real estate management firm) also shares the same opinion by saying, “it takes away from sort of a community of learners, and it creates more of a separate living environment that does not support that mission” (Eligon 12).
Indeed, as Seldin says, living in these luxury apartments may have more students worried about luxury, as opposed to education (4). While some people may argue that the presence of luxury may not necessarily prevent students from studying, common knowledge would argue that a freshman would choose to have fun in a Jacuzzi, as opposed to studying for a science examination. While some people may also argue that these housing facilities have modern facilities that promote a learning environment (as described in the background section of this report), it is important to note that such attempts at integrating academic life and comfort fall short of the threshold applied by the university’s academic staff. Stated differently, learning is not a core focus for developers of these high-end housing facilities.
In fact, according to Greg Henry, the CEO of Aspen Heights, it is not their responsibility to create a learning environment for the students (Eligon 13). Their focus is providing enough beds for the students to sleep on.
Our proposed Solution
Based on the insights highlighted in this report, we want to use our unique perspective as students to propose workable solutions that could improve the quality of our lives and those around us. For example, if it would take a long time to check the growth of luxury housing developments in the community, a more effective strategy for changing this trend is regulating rental house income for all students. This strategy would help to restore East housing and other developments that are close to the campus area. This would be a first step in learning how to resist the pressures of development companies in the community.
Similarly, the Missouri Students Association should establish a special commission to look for smarter ways of addressing the student housing problem in Columbia, as opposed to allowing one type of housing developments to take over the sector, disregarding its impact on the student community and student life on campus.
As an alternative strategy, concerned stakeholders should also encourage public participation in the community to stop the tide on the development of new student housing facilities at the expense of some of the community’s national and historic buildings. Already this report has identified several buildings that some developers want to demolish because of this trend.
The community could achieve some progress by preventing such developers from doing so through increased public participation, as was the case with the stoppage of the destruction of Niedermeyer Building, which is next door to the James Condominium.
Public outcry over the destruction of the building prevented its destruction and paved the way for another developer to buy it and save it from impending destruction. Such an initiative shows that public participation could reverse the trend towards the destruction of some of Columbia’s old and historic buildings. This intervention also shows that the public could stop developers from destroying old buildings without much help from the city council, or the zoning department.
To achieve the above goals, we would use several strategies. First, it is important to appeal to the city council to stop further approvals of luxury development complexes because they only compound the housing problem in the community. The growth of luxury housing apartments in the community hurts the student community at the University of Missouri by locking some students out of the university’s social activities and limiting their interaction with other members of the community.
Furthermore, there is potential for a growing economic divide within the student community, which splits between those who could afford the luxury housing and those who cannot. By creating congestion in the downtown areas of Columbia, the growth of luxury housing in the community also hurts residents and visitors of the community. Although the effects of the growth of luxury housing units in Columbia may not be fully comprehensible now, we believe that the residents and local authorities in the community would regret their inaction to stop this trend. This outcome could occur in different ways.
For example, based on the potential erosion of Columbia’s heritage through the development of luxury housing, the community would lose its diversity. Indeed, the beauty of Columbia lies in the appreciation of its diversity and heritage. Most of the community’s heritage is enshrined in some of the community’s oldest buildings, which are set for demolition. The city council should understand that its inaction in stopping the rapid growth of luxury apartments in Columbia is primarily a product of the council’s quest for economic growth at the expense of the interests of the residents of Columbia. Its inaction would also eventually define how downtown Columbia would look like in future.
The plan of action to bring change rests in, first, approaching council members and presenting our grievances and plan of action to them. The purpose of doing so is to gain their support. Participating in a council meeting would be useful in reaching this goal. Since the media often cover county meetings, if they cover the proposed meeting with the council members, they would advance the cause of the student population.
The second line of action would involve seeking audience with the Historic Preservation Commission. The purpose of doing so is to brainstorm and come up with possible solutions for the student community to get involved and stop the unabated growth of luxury housing developments in Columbia. A partnership between students and the Historic Preservation Commission should be fruitful because according to the latter’s website, the commission is supposed to “investigate and recommend to the Council the adoption of ordinances designating protection against areas as having special cultural, historic, archaeological, community or architectural value as ‘notable property,’ ‘landmarks’ or ‘historic districts’” (Iverson 5).
Students are supposed to provide support to this entity because ongoing developments in the region affect them. Besides maintaining good records about the country’s archeological and historic sites, the Historic Preservation Commission should also educate the public about the importance of having these historic structures. Therefore, this entity would be important in creating community awareness about the impact of the activities of developers in the area.
Ideally, it should help community members to disapprove the ongoing developments in the community for the sake of preserving the cultural heritage of the region. If attempts at stopping the growth of luxury housing fail to materialize this way, we may have to start a local student movement to achieve the same objective. Such a movement would change the perception of council members regarding the problem because ignoring the public could possibly lead to their removal from office. We would also seek partners from the media by writing letters and emails to the Columbia Tribune, the Missourian and the Maneater.
Later we would seek an audience with community leaders and seek their contribution in this regard, and in starting a political process to stop the ongoing development of luxury student housing in Columbia.
Limitations of Our Solutions
One of the limitations of the proposed plan is our position as students who have stakes in the problem. Naturally, we cannot be objective about the housing issue because we want to pay low rents and the cost of living is a problem for most of us. Similarly, since we have a strong attachment to Columbia, we would like to see the community’s heritage preserved. Some of these concerns may prompt some people to oppose our views when we bring our grievances to the City Council.
Furthermore, people who know the politics of the region may undermine our appeal, because most students are not registered voters and consequently have little political influence in the regional politics of Columbia. Furthermore, some of us are not voters in Columbia. However, such challenges should not prevent us from advancing our cause because history shows us that students could easily bring about community change, regardless of age. Additionally, we hope that as we reach out to concerned partners, our arguments would gain traction. Therefore, we expect that citizens, community members, and businesses would help us to advance our cause in the future.
Works Cited
Columbia University. Community Specific Housing. 2016. Web.
Eligon, John. “In Student Housing, Luxuries Overshadow Studying.” New York Times. 2013: 1. Print.
Iverson, Chris. The Curious Case of Luxury Student Housing. 2014. Web.
Seldin. Apartment Trends: Off-Campus Luxury Student Housing. 2014. Web.
Maneater Editorial Committee. “Too Much ‘Luxury’ Student Housing Hurts Everyone.” The Maneater Student Newspaper (Columbia, MO). 2013: 20. Print.
Tungekar, Rehman. How Luxury Student Housing Divides Students. 2013. Web.