Living away at University
dangerous headlines, Stigma of HMOs, Drivers in BTR and Co-Living and should the sector be concerned about buying and selling houses getting easier?
The episode opens with a frank look at a headline that frames a growing number of commuter students as a lifestyle choice, when the deeper current is affordability. We challenge the narrative that today’s students stay home because they’ve rejected a party culture, noting how Gen Z’s healthier habits can coexist with the desire to move out, build independence, and take part in residential life. The core argument is simple and uncomfortable: rent and total living costs are pushing many to commute, even when they want to live near campus. We draw on anecdotal evidence from operators, conversations with universities, and references to UCAS to underline the need for better data on drivers of commuter growth, rather than resting on convenient assumptions. Independence still matters; the economics have shifted, and messaging hasn’t kept up.
As the discussion deepens, we put a spotlight on outcomes. Residential life creates social networks, soft skills, and routines that support academic success—an angle PBSA and universities underuse in marketing. Instead of glamorizing nights out, operators can credibly position quiet study spaces, pastoral support, and well-run communities as contributors to better grades and wellbeing. The PR gap shows up in how universities attempt to balance commuter realities with bed-fill challenges: few want to imply commuters underperform, even when research suggests proximity and engagement boost outcomes. We explore whether flexible models—short, affordable stays for labs, exams, or intensive weeks—unlock value from void beds while giving commuters slices of residential life that matter most. One student’s comparison—£90 per night versus £600 monthly rent—captures the appeal of flexible, pay-as-you-need options that fit spiky term-time demands.
We then pivot to a second PR challenge: HMOs. Headlines and local posts increasingly link HMOs to noise, parking strain, or immigration, flattening a nuanced housing type into a scapegoat. We parse the difference between NIMBY rhetoric and the structural headwinds landlords face—tax changes, EPC rules, licensing complexity, and uncertainty under renters’ reform. Many landlords, facing higher compliance costs and risk, exit HMOs or convert to single lets, squeezing supply in cities where demand hasn’t fallen. Public understanding is thin; alumni who lived in HMOs may not realize they did, and councils are cautious under media glare. Education is the first remedy: HMOs house students, key workers, new arrivals, and young professionals; they are a vital rung in the housing ladder when done well. Clear standards, enforcement that rewards quality, and coordinated messaging can rehabilitate reputation while protecting neighbours' concerns.
From there, we unpack fresh data from the 2025 Build to Rent Report and its co-living addendum. The headline: both BTR and co-living are maturing into longer-term choices. Co-living sees roughly half of residents intending to stay beyond a year; BTR reports high renewal rates and a strong base of residents working from home several days a week. This is not a stopgap—it’s a product-market fit for modern routines. We raise an eyebrow at methodology around “rent price” versus “all-inclusive” as primary drivers; inconsistent survey phrasing can blur insights. Still, the signal is clear: predictable costs and amenity-rich, well-managed buildings in central locations make renting an aspirational, stable choice. We note the persistent laundry pain point—bills-included often excludes laundry—arguing operators should align pricing with expectations or explain clearly why laundry sits outside the bundle.
Planning and policy loom large in the sector’s trajectory. The absence of a clean use class for co-living remains a brake on delivery, confusing planners and investors alike. With both major parties floating ideas to ease home buying—faster conveyancing, rebates for deposits—the narrative continues to tilt toward ownership. We argue for a “balanced ladder” approach: renting as a respected, supported phase of adult life with pathways to ownership for those who want it. That could include models where a slice of rent translates into savings or credit toward a future deposit, especially in mixed build-to-sell and build-to-rent portfolios. BTR and co-living can defend their lane by emphasizing quality, location, WFH support, and community—benefits hard to match in entry-level ownership without long commutes or major compromises. A practical takeaway for developers: keep pricing transparent, calibrate amenities to WFH realities, publish data on study and career outcomes, and engage proactively with local communities on HMOs and co-living benefits.
We close by circling back to choice and independence. Many young adults internalize a singular path—work, save, buy—because that’s the cultural script. Yet renting can be the smarter move for a few years: live near opportunity, reduce commute time and tap into managed services.