Midway through November, every resident in University Pointe had their apartments entered by a team of maintenance workers. Their contract? Uninstall all traditional locks and replace them with a smartphone-controlled digital system.
Previously, all residents had key fobs supplied by the building. This had been the system for years.
Madison Harms—a resident in the student apartment complex—described her experience during the lock changeover. “They only gave us 24-hour notice of entry,” she said. “They didn’t give us two weeks or a month.”
Harms explained that she could not re-enter her apartment immediately after they replaced the locks due to technical difficulties with the app. She sought a nearby maintenance worker for help, who then directed her to the front office. After waiting in the office for some time, building management arrived and attempted to redirect her to maintenance until Madison demanded that they listen to her situation.
“I was the only one who didn’t have issues in my apartment,” said another resident, who wished to remain anonymous. “But three out of the four of us did. They were all locked out of their apartment for the first two days that the locks were changed with no way to reconcile that.”
University Pointe is a Portland State housing partner run by American Campus Communities (ACC), a large private company with student apartments across the country—some very luxurious. The company currently resides under ownership by Blackstone, a large asset manager who bought out ACC in 2022.
The tenants must now use an app called Livvi to access their rooms. It’s a third-party app by a studio named ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions.
The app requires a Wi-Fi connection and Bluetooth capabilities to function. Currently, it possesses a 1.2-star rating on Google Play and a 1.4-star rating on Apple’s App Store. This is based on a total of 78 reviews between the two platforms.
Tenants were not consulted about the new lock system and were only given a few days of notice before the change, with multiple delays before the change occurred.
“I don’t get why they didn’t do that over the summer,” said Keaton Parker, another resident. “They randomly told us on, like, a Tuesday that they’re changing the locks… it’s kind of weird to do that in the middle of the term.”
Parker went on to describe how maintenance left the living room of their apartment with an overwhelming mess of sawdust after finishing the installation of the locks. Many tenants reported a similar experience.
Above all other concerns, many residents are concerned about the ethical ramifications of requiring all residents to have smartphones to access their homes.
“To be honest, I think that it’s kind of dumb that you have to rely on your phone, because if someone’s phone is dead they can’t get in the building,” Parker said. “I feel like what would have been better is if the main key was on your phone, but the fob still works to let you get back in.”
Another anonymous resident voiced similar concerns. “I think it’s a safety hazard to have our only form of entry be reliant on people’s ability to have a smartphone,” this resident said. “I also think that them not having another key is wildly unsafe.”
There is no alternative to the Livvi app for residents, though Harms reports seeing staff and maintenance carry key fobs to access rooms.
If a resident gets locked out of their room without any means of contacting their roommates—like in a situation where their phone is missing or broken—they can go to the front desk and request staff to let them in. However, the fee for doing so is $75 during operating hours and $100 after hours every single time.
“I think having to spend $75 to access your apartment is wildly unsafe,” the anonymous resident said.
“My friend has been locked out of their apartment twice because she didn’t have access to her phone,” Harms said. “Once, because her phone was dead. She’s been charged $175 for it.”
Harms sent a pointed email to University Pointe management questioning the necessity and ethics of the new lock system. The detailed email questioned the lack of timely notice, the safety of her apartment should she be locked out and ethical concerns with the new system.
“Please explain to me why I am chained to the device when I work out, take a break from school or simply go for a quiet walk,” stated the email. “I’m forced to carry my cell phone so I have access to my bed.”
“Another main concern is that I would be terrified to be locked out of my building in an unsafe area without any way to contact someone if I don’t have my phone if it’s dead,” Harms’ email stated. “Where in my lease agreement is the ‘resident must have a cell phone and carry it at all times’ statement? University Pointe must provide access alternatives.”
Harms received a response signed by “University Pointe at College Station,” addressing only the safety aspects of the email and ensuring that staff will let tenants back in when needed. They did not reference the ethical concerns Harms had raised nor the fees required for helping with entry.
Harms sent back another detailed paragraph with her additional concerns. These concerns ranged from inquiries about tenants who don’t own smartphones to concerns about accessing the building’s front desk in instances where one is locked out, as well as worries about racking up fees for residents who have frequent phone issues.
In response, University Pointe sent her a short email. “At this time the mobile key is the only option for our residents,” University Pointe’s email stated. “It looks like your mobile key was delivered earlier today. Your lock will be replaced this week, possibly as early as tomorrow. Should you have any additional questions or concerns related to alternative options, please reach out to our management team.”
University Pointe management did not respond to Portland State Vanguard’s requests for comment.
