Context
Woodson Development is a real estate developer working in the Bryan and College Station area of Texas. The project in question was a mixed-use complex of low-rise buildings, with commercial space on the ground floor of the street-facing buildings and apartments above and behind them. The homes were designed as a mix of one- and two-bedroom units, some with bonus rooms, patios, or balconies, and the site plan arranged them around shared outdoor space: green areas, an elevated deck, a plaza, and a dog park. The development was still in planning when the engagement began, with rents and the final amenity list not yet fixed.
The site sits within a short walk or bike ride of the Texas A&M campus, next to an area that has been redeveloping from older housing toward denser residential blocks with food and retail at street level. Purpose-built student housing already surrounded it, some of it decades old and some of it recent, and the market around it was moving rather than settled: complexes were resetting rates for the coming academic year, on-campus housing rates were rising, and general price levels in the economy were climbing at the same time.
Challenge
Woodson Development was planning a mixed-use project near the Texas A&M campus, combining apartments with ground-floor retail. The buildings and the site plan were settled, but the commercial questions were not. Before setting rents or fixing the amenity list, the developer wanted a clearer picture of the local apartment market and of what student renters valued: how much proximity to campus was worth to them, which amenities were merely appealing and which would actually decide a lease, and how comparable properties nearby were priced and equipped in a year when rates were being reset for the coming academic term. Woodson Development had begun its own comparison of nearby properties, but it was partial, and the picture it gave had not yet been tested against what renters themselves said.
How the team worked
The engagement was set up as a branding and marketing brief for the retail and apartment components of the development. Early conversations moved it. What Woodson Development needed first was market understanding, since decisions about rent levels and amenities would sit underneath any branding work that followed. The team reset the scope around two pieces of research, a consumer survey of student renters and a comparison of nearby properties, and worked from the client's own project documents so the questions matched the buildings actually being planned.
Background research came first. The team catalogued what local apartment complexes had in common, amenity by amenity and utility by utility, and turned that list into the fields the property comparison would carry. It also read through earlier consumer surveys to learn what made them work: the ones that collected useful information tended to be short, and responses came in faster when an incentive was offered. The team wrote a concise questionnaire on that model, covering current rent, distance from campus, whether utilities were included, class year, and amenity preferences on a rating scale, then sent it to the client for review and revision before anything went out.
Distribution was deliberately spread. The revised survey went out through Texas A&M student organizations and group channels, and the team also surveyed in person around campus and the nearby retail district to reach renters the online channels would miss. The responses were analyzed into charts and histograms: what students currently paid, what they were willing to pay for a one-bedroom and for a two-bedroom, how that shifted as distance from campus grew, and which amenities they rated appealing against which they rated critical.
In parallel the team took the client's starter spreadsheet of comparable properties, filled in what was missing, and extended it: columns for utilities and which ones were included, current one- and two-bedroom pricing, and a fuller amenity list, with further comparable properties found by using the existing entries as a model and the whole list color-coded by relative distance to campus. The written deliverable brought the two halves together, explained how annual rate increases and the timing of spring research affect any rates collected, and closed with suggestions on rent positioning and amenities.
Workstreams
- Reviewed local apartment complexes and past consumer surveys to decide which amenities and utilities to compare and to keep the survey short enough to earn responses.
- Designed a consumer preference survey with the client, revised it after their review, and distributed it through Texas A&M student organizations and in-person surveying.
- Analyzed the responses into charts showing how willingness to pay shifted with distance from campus and which amenities students rated most appealing or most critical.
- Completed and expanded the client's comparable-properties spreadsheet with current one- and two-bedroom pricing, utilities, and additional properties, color-coded by distance to campus.
- Summarized the findings into suggestions on rent positioning and amenities for the development's next planning stages.
What the team found
- Proximity to campus carried a clear premium: for the closest properties renters accepted noticeably higher rents, and that willingness fell away steadily as distance grew.
- Beyond the closest band, location stopped being the deciding factor and amenities took over as the thing that separated one property from another on price.
- Amenity preference split between appealing and critical: fitness space drew the most enthusiasm overall but ranked lower once renters were asked what they could not do without.
- Study rooms, computer and printing space, and pools ranked consistently high, while outdoor features such as dog parks, sport courts, and outdoor kitchens drew the least interest.
- Rates recorded for comparable properties do not line up with what renters report paying, because complexes raise rates through the leasing year and general price levels had been rising.
- Student coffee preference concentrated heavily on the chains with the most locations on or nearest campus rather than spreading across independent shops.
What the client received
- Consumer preference survey designed with the client and revised before distribution
- Analysis of the survey responses as charts and histograms
- Willingness-to-pay comparison across distance-from-campus bands for one- and two-bedroom units
- Amenity ranking separating what renters find appealing from what they treat as critical
- Expanded comparable-properties spreadsheet with utilities, current one- and two-bedroom pricing, and amenities, color-coded by distance to campus
- Note on how annual rate increases and research timing affect any rates collected
- Written final deliverable with rent positioning and amenity suggestions
Outcome
Woodson Development came away able to see the two halves of the question together: survey evidence on how student renters weigh location against cost and which amenities they treat as decisive rather than pleasant, and a current, expanded comparable-properties sheet it can keep using as tenant pricing is set. It also has a written record of why recorded rates and reported rents differ, so the numbers can be read with the right caution, and a set of suggestions on rent positioning and amenities to carry into the advanced planning stages of the development.
Recommendations
- Set rent positioning from the distance band the site actually sits in rather than from a market average, using the willingness-to-pay pattern the survey recorded for one- and two-bedroom units.
- Treat the expanded comparable-properties sheet as the reference when tenant pricing is set, reading its rates alongside the note on annual increases and the timing of the research.
- Prioritize the amenities renters called critical over the ones they only called appealing, since the critical list is what a lease decision turns on.
- Weigh study and work space, including quiet rooms and printing, against fitness and pool space when the amenity mix is decided, rather than assuming the most popular answer is the decisive one.
- Consider what the ground-floor commercial space could offer residents directly, given how strongly student preference concentrated on the nearest and most familiar options.
- Refresh the property comparison closer to lease-up, since rates in this market move within the leasing year as well as between years.
Next steps
- The client was handed the survey instrument itself, so the same questions can be put to renters again as the project moves toward leasing.
- The client was handed the expanded comparable-properties spreadsheet in a form it can keep updating, with the added columns and the distance color-coding already in place.
- The client was handed the charted survey analysis together with the rent and amenity suggestions, to carry into the advanced planning stages of the development.
- The client was handed an open invitation to work with TASK again on the later stages of the project.