town-gown collaboration

7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration

1/36

Town-Gown Collaborationin Land Use and Development

Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z

Policy Focus Report Lincoln Institute of Land Policy


2/36

TownGown Collaborationin Land Use and DevelopmentYesim Sungu-Eryilmaz

Plicy Fcus Reprt SeriesThe policy ocus report series is published by the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy to address

timely public policy issues relating to land use, land markets, and property taxation. Each report

is designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by combining research ndings,

case studies, and contributions rom scholars in a variety o academic disciplines, and rom

proessional practitioners, local ocials, and citizens in diverse communities.

Abut this Reprt

Universities have entered into a new era o community engagement, but towngown conficts

still existespecially when institutions seek to expand at the campus edge. Building on the

Lincoln Institutes City, Land, and the University program, started in 2001, this policy ocus

report describes the evolving roles o colleges and universities in urban development; examines

sources o tensions over land use and development decisions; and presents a variety o

approaches that do and do not work in managing these conficts. The report also oers several

approaches to consider in designing successul collaborations among the university, the city,

and the neighborhood.

Abut the Authr

Yesim Sungu-Eryilma was a research associate at the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy rom

2004 to 2009. Her work ocuses on strategies and collaborations that balance economic and

community development goals in urban areas, such as community land trusts and the role o

universities in planning and development. She earned her Masters degree in city and regional

planning rom the University o Pennsylvania and her Ph.D. in public and international aairs

rom the University o Pittsburgh. Contact: [email protected]

Copyright 2009 by the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.

All rights reserved.

113 Brattle Street

Cambridge, MA 02138-3400, USA

www.lincolninst.edu

ISBN 978-1-55844-195-8

Policy Focus Report/Code PF022


3/36

Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

2 Eecutie Summary

4 Chapter 1: The City, Land, and the Uniersity

7 Chapter 2: Eling TwnGwn Relatins in Urban Deelpment

Economic Development

Community Development

12 Chapter 3: Uniersity Mtiatins r Land Use and Deelpment Prects

Student Housing and Recreational Needs

Research Facilities and Related Needs

Revitalization o Adjacent Neighborhoods and Downtowns

Land Banking or Future Use and Income

17 Chapter 4: City and Neighbrhd Interests in Uniersity Land Deelpment

Social Equity

Spillover Eects

Involvement in the Planning Process

Loss o Property Tax Revenue

22 Chapter 5: Psitie Practices r TwnGwn Relatins

Incorporating Social and Economic Programs

Managing Spillover Eects Through PlanningIntegrating University Buildings Through Design

Formalizing Stakeholder Participation and Leadership

Osetting Tax-exempt Status

Summary

28 Chapter 6: Ming Tward Successul TwnGwn Cllabratins

Balancing University and Community Interests

Working Together Toward Common Goals

Creating Lasting Change

30 Reerences

32 Acnwledgments


4/36

2 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive Summary

Colleges and universities are among

the largest landowners and devel-

opers in urban areas. To ulll

their mission, these institutions

oten become involved in land development

at the campus edge, whether to construct

new dormitories and research acilities or to

oset neighborhood decline. Their activities

usually have an immediate impact on the

neighborhood and even on the entire city.

When the use o urban land or univer-

sity purposes competes with its use or local

priorities, conficts inevitably arise. A variety

o stakeholdersranging rom local govern-

ments to nearby residentsmay mobilize

to counter university land development or

reasons related to social and economic con-

cerns, quality o lie in the neighborhood,

the planning and design process, and loss

o property tax revenue.

This policy ocus report lays out the

competing interests aected by university

land use and development activities, and

highlights some approaches that have and

have not worked in solving conficts between

institutions and their communities. The

better approaches, o course, have the most

potential or success when they balance

academic and community needs through a

participatory and inclusive planning process.

Institutions o higher education have

entered a new era o community engage-

Bstn

Uniersity


5/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ment. While once unctioning mainly as

enclaves o intellectual pursuit, colleges and

universities today play a much broader role

in the economic, social, and physical devel-opment o their host cities and neighbor-

hoods. They have become key institutions,

oten termed anchor institutions, in their

communities through their economic impacts

on employment, spending, and work-orce

development, as well as through their ability

to attract new businesses and highly skilled

individuals and to revitalize adjacent

neighborhoods.

This evolving situation presents new chal-

lenges and opportunities or towngown part-

nerships. Because most o these institutions

have substantial xed assets and are not

likely to relocate, the need or eective collab-

oration is increasing. At the same time these

institutions must achieve their missions in ahighly competitive environment and in a

period o extreme scal pressure.

Colleges and universities must seek to

be ully vested urban anchor institutions,

not only by advancing the goals o academia,

but also by coordinating their place-based

strategies with the interests o the city and

the community. When land use and devel-

opment conficts are avoided or resolved

amicably, both universities and communities

can reap the benets o the resources that

each has to oer.

Uniersity Land Use and Deelpment: What wrs? What des nt?

City and Cmmunity

Cncerns What Wrs? What Des Nt?

Scial Euity Eorts to mitigate displacement and

gentrication, and to generate job opportu-

nities or local residents and businesses.

Ignoring the neighborhoods social and

economic context and issues that might

aect local residents and businesses.

Spiller Eects Regulatory and nonregulatory planning

mechanisms that balance the needs o

the academic and local communities.

Lack o planning by colleges

and universities.

Design Planning and developing the campus

in ways that blend the academic

and local communities.

Development that is out o character

with the surrounding neighborhood.

Planning Prcess A joint planning process that involves the

university, the community, and the city.

Finalizing university land use and

development plans internally.

Leadership Close involvement o the university

president or other top-level leaders in

developing and sustaining the commitment

to community engagement.

No ormal mechanism or senior ocials

to work with the city and community,

except on an ad hoc basis.

Ta-eempt Status Recognition o the uneven distribution

o tax burdens throughout the state.

Long-running disputes and court cases

between the universities and cities over

development projects and tax-exempt status.


6/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 1

The City, Land, and the University

areas compared to the share o urban

population. Even in the very rural states

throughout the Midwest and South, colleges

and universities are more highly urbanized

than the overall population. Among the

six states where these institutions are less

urbanized than the state population, the

population shares in ve o these states

(Caliornia, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland,

and New Jersey) exceed the U.S. average

o 79 percent.

Until airly recently, most urban colleges

and universities remained enclaves o intel-

lectual pursuit that seldom collaborated with

surrounding neighborhoods and host cities

to address common problems. This situa-

tion was the result o distinct and exclusive

Institutions o higher education vary

greatly, rom community colleges, to

small private and public liberal arts

colleges, to large private and public

research universities. The United States has

a long history o small liberal arts colleges

and large land grant universities located in

rural settings. Today, however, an average

o 82 percent o all degree-granting public

and private institutions are located in urban

areas, and in 28 o the 50 states, the percen-

tage is greater than the national average.

Moreover, institutions o higher education

in most states are more urbanized than their

populations. Figure 1 shows the share o

degree-granting public and private two-year

and our-year institutions located in urban

Photo of University of Hawaii

iStock

Uniersity Hawaii

Uniersity

Hawaii,

Hnlulu


7/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

interests, missions, and practices. But over

the last 20 years, towngown relationships

have undergone a sea change that refects a

greater university interest in working activelywith local governments, businesses, and

community-based organizations (CBOs).

New language included in university mis-

sion statements provides evidence o this shit,

such as engagement, partnership, and

reciprocity (Perry 2008). Portland State

University (or excellence in. . . community

engagement), Northeastern University

(commitment to . . . urban engagement),

and the University o Maryland (engage

the University more ully in. . . collaborative

partnership) are just a ew o the institutions

that explicitly make strong community

relations part o their missions.

figure 1

In Mst States, Uniersities Are Mre Urbanied Than the Ppulatin, 2007

Notes: The geographic classication is constructed rom urban-centric rather than metro-centric criteria, representing urbanicity (city/suburb/rural) by population size

o the institutions location. This urban-centric locale code was assigned through a methodology developed by the U.S. Census Bureaus Population Division in 2005.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007); National Center or Education Statistics Web site.

This new practice comes in response to

external pressures, including criticism that

universities receive public support but ignore

the interests and concerns o their hostcommunities (Mayeld 2001). This shit also

refects internal changes in academia,

especially those based on enlightened sel-

interest (Benson, Puckett, and Harkavy

2007). By their nature, colleges and univer-

sities are dynamic and constantly challenged

by changes in political economy, unding,

demographics, communities, and educa-

tional theory and practice. This dynamism

has led institutions to expand their roles in

society and to improve their relations with

their neighbors and their cities as a whole.

Despite a new period o collaboration

among higher education, local government,

AK

HI

1.40

Key: Ratio of share of

urban universities to

share of urban population

ME

NH

VT

MA

CTRI

NY

PA

NJ

DE

MDWVVA

NC

SC

GA

FL

ALMS

TN

KY

OH

MI

WI

INIL

AR

MO

IA

MN

ND

SD

NE

KS

OK

TX

NM

CO

WY

MT

ID

WA

OR

NV

UT

CA

AZ

LA


8/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

businesses, and community organizations,

towngown conficts still exist. The riction

is perhaps most apparent in land use and

development processes at the edge o cam-puses. Indeed, competition or the use o

urban land between university activities and

neighborhood or citywide purposes has led

to requent conficts over the last 20 years,

and may be increasing in some places

(gure 2).

The competing interests o the university,

the neighborhood, and the city have three

implications. First, even in the era o the

engaged university, land use and develop-

ment processes at the campus edge will

repeatedly put towngown relations to thetest. Second, nearly all real estate activities

o universities and colleges are multiaceted

and have multiple stakeholders, including

residents, businesses, and local governments.

Third, land uses at the campus edge have

become a crucial element in both the phy-

sical and socioeconomic character o cities

and neighborhoods.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

News

paperArticles

figure 2

Twn-Gwn Cnficts er Urban Land Use Persist

Note: Analysis is based on a search o LexisNexis or the number o all U.S. newspaper articles describing towngown land use

and development conficts rom 1990 to 2008. Towngown Conficts Index (1990=100).


9/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 2

Evolving Town-Gown Relationsin Urban Development

Globalization has presented cities

with many new and persistent

challenges, especially during the

current economic slowdown.

Almost all major metropolitan areas in the

United States have been aected by these

changes that have either helped them attract

new businesses and residents or let them

suering rom disinvestment and popula-

tion loss.

These economic and social changes in

cities and neighborhoods have helped to

reshape towngown relationships. In both

advancing and declining cities, local govern-

ments have recognized the growing impor-

tance o colleges and universities as anchor

institutions in economic and community

development. This represents a shit in the

governance paradigm, since governments

alone cannot address the complexity o

todays urban problems. This new paradigm

encourages the creation o partnerships

among the public, private, and nonprot

sectors to harness the collective capacity

o all players to solve these issues.

Colleges and universities thus have a key

role to play with state and local governments

and nonprots in areas as diverse as educa-

Stata Center,

Massachusetts

Institute

Technlgy,

Cambridge


10/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

institutions o higher education provide

technical support and specialized expertise

to rms (Bramwell and Wole 2008). Changes

in academic research and development und-ing patterns suggest how these university

private sector partnerships have evolved

over the last 35 years (gure 3). While the

ederal government continues to provide

more than 60 percent o unds or academic

research and development, industry sources

contributed 5 percent ($2.1 billion), and

state and local government unding provided

6 percent ($2.6 billion) o the total in 2006.

Colleges and universities can enhance the

local technological base i rms locate nearby

and coordinate their research eorts with

those institutions (Varga 2000). In recent

years, technoparks or joint university-

industry research centers or ongoing, rm-

based research and development have ex-

panded dramatically. A growing number o

universities have become directly involved

in the incubation o newly established

scientic and technical companies.

For example, Worcester Polytechnic

Institute (WPI) in Massachusetts, joined the

Worcester Business Development Corpora-

tion in developing Gateway Park, a 12-acre

figure 3

Industry and Gernments Cntribute Billins t Academic R&D

tion and skills training, technology, indus-

trial perormance, public health, and social

and cultural development (Adams 2003;

ICIC and CEOs or Cities 2002).

EC o N o M IC D Ev EL o PM EN T

The importance o universities to their

local economies has long been recognized.

Among their many economic impacts, the

most important ones are enhancing the

industry and technology base, employing

large numbers o people, and generating

revenue or local governments through

university expenditures on salaries, goods,

and services.

Enhancing the Industry

and Technology Base

In the evolving knowledge economy, the

contribution o the creative class is oten

seen as strategic and valuable or local econ-

omic development (Florida 2005; Glaeser

2000). It is clear that institutions o higher

education can play an important role in

growing, attracting, and retaining knowl-

edge workers (Clark 2003).

Beyond preparing and attracting a

qualied workorce to the local economy,

All othersources

Academic

institutionsIndustry

State/localgovernment

Federalgovernment

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2000Constant$m

illions

Notes: Institutional unds

encompass two categories:

institutionally nanced and

organized research expendi-tures; and unreimbursed

indirect costs and related

sponsored research. This

category does not include

departmental research, and

thus excludes unds (notably

or aculty salaries) in cases

where research activities are

not budgeted separately.

Source: National Science

Foundation (2008).


11/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

mixed-use development or lie sciences and

biotech companies and the people who work

or them. The project includes ve buildings

with 500,000 square eet o fexible lab space,

plus 241,000 square eet o market-rate lot

condominiums, restaurants, and business

services, and a plan or graduate student

housing on one o the sites.

While many universities support incuba-

tors or newly established technical and scien-

tic ventures, some also provide space or

large, more mature companies on their cam-

puses. For example, Express Scripts, Inc., a

major pharmacy benets management

company with almost $18 billion in annual

sales, located its headquarters at University

Place/NorthPark, on the campus o the

University o MissouriSt. Louis (UMSL).

The companys criteria or selecting the

UMSL site included the ability to expand

and the opportunity to collaborate with a

university in developing inormation tech-

nology projects (Herrick 2007).

Generating Employment

and Spending

Colleges and universities oten rank among

the largest employers in metropolitan areas.

In 1997, these institutions employed more

than 2.8 million workers, or more than 2 per-

cent o the total U.S. workorce. Approxi-

mately two-thirds are administrative and

support sta, and the remaining third are

aculty (ICIC and CEOs or Cities 2002). In

some local labor markets, such as Cincinnati,

academic institutions surpassed other cor-

porations as the leading employer (table 1).

A 1999 survey o the top employers in

the nations 20 largest cities ound that edu-

cational and medical institutions accounted

or more than 50 percent o the jobs gene-

rated in our o those cities (Washington, DC,

Philadelphia, San Diego, and Baltimore).

Moreover, these institutions were also the

top employers in every one o the 20 cities,

despite dierences in the age o the city,

its geographic region, population, and other

Epress Scripts at

the Uniersity

MissuriSt. Luis


12/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

socioeconomic characteristics (Harkavy

and Zuckerman 1999).

Universities also generate desirable local

economic impacts because they purchase

large amounts o goods and services in the

local marketplace, and because most o

their expenditures are distributed as salaries,

which tend to be spent locally. They also

generate large amounts o student spending.

According to the ICIC (2002, 7), urban

university spending on salaries, goods, and

services was more than nine times the

amount that the ederal government spent

on urban job creation and business devel-

opment in 1996.Although estimating the ull multiplier

eects o university spending is complex,

numerous studies have demonstrated the

signicance o this economic activity (College

and University Impact Portal 2009). These

eects, o course, vary by type o university

(public or private), orm o organization

(single campus versus statewide system), and

location (metropolitan area versus small town).

For example, a recent study by the Univer-

sity o Caliornia at San Diego showed that

its impact in the city included approximately

$2.275 billion in direct and indirect spend-

ing, 20,790 direct and indirect jobs, and

$1.228 billion in direct and indirect personal

income (UC San Diego 2008).

C o M M U N ITY D Ev EL o PM EN T

Institutions o higher education have estab-

lished more ormal partnerships with their

communities in recent years, oten providing

technical assistance such as neighborhood

planning or capacity-building or commu-

nity-based organizations. For example, Pratt

Institutes Center or Community and En-

vironmental Design has developed long-

term relationships with a variety o mature

CBOs in New York City, acilitated a collab-

orative planning process with several

community partners, and helped to develop

joint agendas driven by local stakeholders

(Vidal et al. 2002).

The Center or Community Partnerships

at the University o Pennsylvania has engaged

in eorts to integrate academic work with

the needs o the community in West Phila-

delphia (Strom 2005). Academically based

community service (ABCS) is just one o

these activities, which is rooted in problem-

oriented research and teaching. The univer-

sity oers approximately 160 ABCS courses

Table 1

The Uniersity Cincinnati LeadsEmplyers in the Greater Cincinnati Regin

Employer

Number o

Employees

University o Cincinnati 15,862

Kroger Company 15,600

Health All iance o Greater Cincinnati 14,785

The Procter & Gamble Company 12,315

Cincinnati Childrens Hospital

Medical Center9,464

TriHealth Inc 9,400

Fith Third Bank 7,645

Wal-mart Stores 7,500

GE Aviation 7,400

Mercy Health Partners 6,948

U.S. Postal Service 6,379

Hamilton County 6,304

Archdiocese o Cincinnati 6,150

Internal Revenue Service 6,000

City o Cincinnati 5,441

Cincinnati Public Schools 5,055

Macys 4,700

CBS Personnel Services 4,534

Frischs Restaurants, Inc. 4,500

Miami University 4,399

Source: Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber (2009).


13/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

in a wide range o disciplines and schools

and in a variety o areas such as the envi-

ronment, health, education, and the arts.

Other university initiatives intended to sup-

port community development include skills

training (generally in classes or residents),

proessional services (such as visiting nurses

or legal clinics), inormation technology

(such as shared databases or training or

CBO sta), and technical assistance to small

businesses. These activities have attractedunding rom a variety o sources including

the Oce o University Partnerships at the

U.S. Department o Housing and Urban

Development (HUD).

Launched in 1994, the Community Out-

reach Partnerships Centers (COPC) program

is HUDs primary vehicle or helping col-

leges and universities apply their human,

intellectual, and institutional resources to

the revitalization o distressed communities.

In its rst decade o operation, the program

granted about $45 million to more than

100 colleges and universities or such eorts

as job training and counseling to reduce

unemployment; resident-backed strategies

to spur economic growth and reduce crime;

local initiatives to combat housing discrimi-nation and homelessness; mentoring pro-

grams or neighborhood youth; and nan-

cial and technical assistance or new

businesses.

HUD-supprted

husing, Hward

Uniersity,

Washingtn, DC


14/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 3

University Motivations forLand Use and Development Projects

Colleges and universities have

emerged as some o the largest

landowners and developers in

their cities, exerting a powerul

infuence on the built environment (Perry

and Wiewel 2005). At the end o scal year

1996, urban institutions held almost $100

billion in land and buildings (book value),

including $8 billion in purchases rom only

the prior year (ICIC and CEOs or Cities

2002). They have several motivations or

undertaking land development activities:

ensuring their capacity to meet growing

demands or student housing and other acil-

ities; ullling their educational and research

agenda; enhancing the quality and security

o their surroundings; and maintaining or

improving their reputation and standing.

S TU D EN T H o U S IN G AN D

R EC R EAT Io N AL N EED S

Colleges and universities oten invest in land

and new buildings to meet growing demands

or on-campus housing and recreational

acilities. Some o this pressure refects a

more than 50 percent increase in U.S. col-

lege enrollment between 1970 and 2005,

with continuing growth projected (gure 4).

In addition to the traditional practice o

providing housing to reshmen and some-

times all students, many colleges and univer-

sities are making the transition rom being

primarily commuter schools to more tradi-

tional residential campuses by adding student

dormitories and expanding sports acilities.

Some o the schools that have recently made

this shit are the University o South Florida

Nrth Pint High-Rise

Drmitry, Uniersity

Calirnia, San Dieg


15/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

in Tampa; Northeastern University in Boston,

Massachusetts; the University o Nebraska

at Omaha; Wayne State University in Detroit,

Michigan; La Salle University in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; and San Jose State University

in Caliornia.

In some cases, universities lack land or

housing or recreational projects, and mustlook or alternatives on the edge o campus.

That was the case or Georgia State Univer-

sity in Atlanta when it made the transition

to a traditional campus-style university in

1993. Georgia State invested in building

both undergraduate and graduate student

housing as a way to create a viable com-

munity (Kelley and Patton 2005).

Three housing development projects

are notable. Georgia State Village includes

housing converted rom Atlantas OlympicVillage, located one-and-a-hal miles rom

the campus on the edge o downtown. The

university purchased the Olympic Village

ater the games and opened the acility in

1996 as housing or 2,000 undergraduates.

The second project, University Lots,

oers housing or graduate and internation-

al students on the edge o the campus.

The Lots opened in 2002 and contains 231

apartments or 460 residents, parking, and

street-level retail space. It was built on land

owned by a local hospital and used as a sur-

ace parking lot. The hospital agreed to a

40-year lease o the land or the expansion

o student housing.

In 2007, the university developed athird project o 2,000 units o undergradu-

ate housing north o campus on a six-acre

site bought rom a ormer auto dealership.

This $168 million project was unded by the

largest bond issue in the United States or

the purpose o housing students.

R ES EAR C H FAC IL I T IES

AN D R EL ATED N EED S

Many colleges and universities took on an

expanded role in basic scientic researchand in research and development (R&D)

ater World War II. Between 1970 and 2006,

academias share o all R&D in the United

States rose rom about 10 percent to about

14 percent (gure 5). In 2006, these institu-

tions conducted more than 30 percent o

the nations basic research and were second

only to the business sector in perorming R&D.

figure 4

Enrllment in Degree-granting Institutins Has Climbed Steadily Since 1970

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

35 and over

30 to 34

2529

2024

1419

Year

Enrollment(000s) Student Age

Note: Data include undergraduate, graduate, ull-time, and part-time students. Data or 1975, 1985, 2010, and 2015 are obtained

using linear interpolation based on existing data or the other years.

Source: National Center or Education Statistics Web site.


16/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One direct implication o this new

ocus is the addition o research acilities to

campus activities. Indeed, institutions that

conduct research built more space or thatwork on their campuses rom 2001 to 2005

than in any other ve-year period since at

least 1988. They added some 185 mil-

lion net assignable square eet or research

between scal 2003 and scal 2005 alone

(gure 6). In 2005, 64 percent o newly built

research space and 67 percent o construc-

tion unds were dedicated to the biological

and medical sciences (National Science

Foundation 2008).

In some cases, universities have struggled

to accommodate their growing research

needs on campus. Smith College in North-

ampton, Massachusetts, or example, be-

came the nations rst womens college to

have an engineering school in 2000. While

the new academic major quickly became

one o the most popular on campus, devel-

opment o the engineering program was

limited by the colleges aging science build-

ings and the lack o space to build new

acilities.

figure 5

Academias Shares Research Hae Increased Especially Since 2000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

PercentofNationalActivity

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Basic Research

R&D

Source: National Science Foundadtion (2008).

Smith Cllege, Nrthamptn, Massachusetts


17/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To accommodate its growing role in

womens science and engineering education,

Smith had to demolish a number o college-

owned properties that had provided housing

and retail space (Smith College 2009). The

college oered tenants relocation inorma-

tion and nancial assistance, and has worked

with developers to provide aordable hous-

ing nearby.

REv ITAL IzAT IoN oF

AD j AC EN T N E IG H B o R H o o D S

AN D D o WN To WN S

For some colleges and universities, the

primary driver o land development is their

desire to enhance the surrounding neigh-

borhood and promote urban revitalization.

Unlike corporations that might choose to

leave a distressed area, most universities

are place-bound. In the past, institutions

responded to a decline in their communities

simply by putting up walls and expanding

police or security services.

More recently, however, urban colleges

and universities have tried to spur economic

and community development beyond their

borders. Indeed, universities now sponsor

activities or create entities that will have a

signicant local economic impact or serve

as the centerpiece o a downtown revival

program. These activities may include

developing retail stores and housing, en-

hancing historic landmarks or parks, im-

proving local schools, and even providing

sanitation and security services or the area.

Howard University in Washington, DC,

had been buying and holding blighted prop-

erty near its campus or decades, and in 1997

launched a massive revitalization initiative

in LeDroit Park. The initial plan was to

rehabilitate 28 vacant houses and build

new housing on 17 additional vacant lots.

Since then, Howard has expanded its

plans to include rehabilitation o a ormer

bread actory into university oces and a

community association center; renovation

o a neighborhood hospital; opening o a

neighborhood security oce; completion

o street and alley resuracing, sidewalk

bricking, tree planting, and trac-calming

measures; redevelopment o open space;

a major telecommunications inrastructure

project; and a home-ownership program or

Howard employees and local residents.

figure 6

Grwth in Academic Research Space Cntinues

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Millionsofnetsquarefeet

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Note: Data or 2000, 2002, and 2004 are obtained using linear interpolation based on existing data or the other years.

Source: National Science Foundation (2008).


18/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In September 2008, Howard received a

$700,000 Oce o University Partnership

grant rom HUD to begin restoration o

the historic Howard Theatre, expand localbusiness development programs, and address

accessibility issues at the community asso-

ciation center (Pyatt 1998).

In another example, the City o India-

napolis attempted to revitalize its declining

downtown throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

By directly engaging Indiana University

Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI)

as an important player in the citys larger

urban development agenda, the city tar-

geted the arts, entertainment, tourism, and

sports acilities as central strategies. IUPUI

and the associated Indiana University Medi-

cal School and hospital acquired many acres

o land to permit expansion. Local corpora-

tions, business leaders, the Lilly Foundation,

and state government strongly supported

the universitys land acquisition policies

and programs.

From 1974 through 1999, more than 50

major development projects were initiated

in the downtown area, and the universitys

investment in the Indianapolis campus

totaled more than $230 million. Several o

the projects were related to sports activities.

Seven national sports organizations moved

their governing oces to Indianapolis in

1989, and the National Collegiate Athletic

Association ollowed in 1999. Development

o the IUPUI campus has been identied asone o the principal economic development

engines or downtown Indianapolis (Cum-

mings et al. 2005).

L AN D B AN k IN G Fo R

FU TU R E U S E AN D IN C o M E

Colleges and universities acquire and

develop land to diversiy their portolios and

to control development at the campus peri-

phery. Many universities construct mixed-

use buildings or purchase commercial and

industrial properties that will be leased to

generate revenue rather than redeveloped

into traditional campus buildings.

Victoria University at the University

o Toronto has created a large portolio o

properties acquired over decades. While its

original goals were to accommodate possible

uture needs and control development at

the campus edge, the university eventually

created mixed-use developments and then

leased the properties (Kurtz 2005). Today,

the university has a stable real estate income

stream with almost hal o its endowment

based in real estate while the other hal

is invested in securities.


19/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 4

City and Neighborhood Interestsin University Land Development

Although city ocials, neighbor-

hood residents, and local busi-

nesses generally see universities

and colleges as positive economic

and cultural assets, clashes between town

and gown are commonplace, especially in

land use and development processes. Institu-

tions o higher education oten nd them-

selves at odds with residents whose goals are

to maintain the stability and character

o their neighborhoods. Concerns about

university expansions generally relate to

social equity due to displacement o resi-

dents and businesses; spillover eects that

erode quality o lie; lack o community

involvement in the planning process;

and loss o property tax revenues.

Uniersity

Washingtn,

Tacma


20/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S o C IAL Eq U ITY

As colleges and universities have become

important drivers o urban revitalization

and as they expand to meet their academicmissions, their actions (and inactions) have

raised social equity concerns among neigh-

borhood residents, businesses, and nonprot

agencies. These stakeholders have argued

that educational institutions largely ignore

neighborhood social issues and problems to

such an extent that they have created a

climate o distrust. In some cases, policies

aimed at neighborhood redevelopment have

had little regard or social impacts related

to displacement o long-time residents and

businesses, and sometimes the destruction

o historic sites.

These kinds o concerns oten arise

even when other economic impacts may beconsidered positive or the city or community.

For example, as cited in the previous chapter,

Indiana UniversityPurdue University

helped to anchor urban redevelopment in

Indianapolis, but it changed the class and

racial composition o the downtown and

displaced an historic section o the citys

AricanAmerican community (Cummings

et al. 2005).

In the late 1980s, the University o

Washington announced that a new branch

would be developed in Tacoma near the

central business district in a largely aban-

doned ormer warehouse district. Although

the new campus has spurred investment in

an economically depressed area, protected

some historic buildings, and received strong

support rom some sectors, residents o a

nearby low-income neighborhood com-

plained that the university was ignoring

their needs and concerns, and was provid-

ing only upper-end jobs (Coey and

Dierwechter 2005).

Columbia Universitys development plans

led to similar conficts. The school is one o

the largest landowners in New York City,

ater the Catholic Church and the city

government (Marcuse and Potter 2005).

Its planned expansion into an area o West

Harlem/Manhattanville raised major objec-

tions rom the neighborhood, primarily

related to the potential displacement o

long-time residents and businesses through

gentrication.

S P IL L o v ER EFFEC TS

Universities and colleges primarily acquire

land and structures that support their core

mission or immediate growth demands. It is

not uncommon, however, or surrounding

communities to criticize universities or their

Clumbia Uniersity,

New Yr, New Yr


21/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

unresponsive development policies or lack

o a plan to mitigate negative spillover

eects. For neighborhood residents, some

o the major concerns relate to quality olie issues, such as conversion o houses

and other buildings to student occupancy;

upward pressure on rents; adaptation o

shops and acilities to student markets; and

increases in trac, noise, and parking prob-

lems (Harasta 2008).

The presence o students is typically

the greatest concern to residents, and both

on- and o-campus student housing have

locational impacts. Residents oten try to

block attempts to expand student housing

out o ear that development o new dor-

mitories will alter the character o their

neighborhoods. In addition, many students

seek private housing in nearby neighbor-

hoods that may be unprepared or unwilling

to receive them.

In Boston, or example, 42 percent o

the nearly 62,000 students attending local

colleges and universities lived o campus

in 2006. While students have moved into

all 20 Boston neighborhoods, slightly more

than hal are concentrated in just our o

them (Kowalcky and Perkins 2006).

Land banking is another issue or neigh-

borhoods and municipalities. As major land-

owners, colleges and universities hold some

parcels until they have a specic need or

development. During the current economic

downturn, declines in nancial resources

such as endownment unds or state monies

may lead institutions to slow their expansion

plans and leave land parcels vacant. I town

gown relations are strained when universities

eel fush with cash, they clearly will be

tested in times o nancial distress.

Harvard University, or example, plan-

ned to construct a $1 billion science com-

plex on part o the 250 acres that it owns in

the Allston neighborhood o Boston. Ater

a sharp drop in its endowment und in 2009,

Harvard put the project on hold. Both neigh-

borhood residents and the City o Boston

raised concerns about the delayprimarily

relating to the universitys lack o a plan

or using the parcels and or improving the

neighborhood in the meantime (Jan 2009).

INvoLvEMENT IN THE

PL AN N IN G PR o C ES S

Universities see their aculty, students,

alumni, and donors as their primary con-

stituencies, and their development priorities

are designed to meet the requirements o

these groups (Webber 2005). But because

their land and building policies are embed-

ded in the larger urban abric, colleges and

universities in act have a broader consti-

tuency that can result in complex and

confict-ridden interactions.

Residents who share space with colleges

and universities oten want to be active

participants in determining uture land uses

and development in their neighborhoods. As

Harard Uniersity,

Allstn, Massachusetts


22/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

one community member said when discuss-

ing Boston Colleges expansion plans in the

Brighton section o Boston, You have a

neighbor who is acting without concern orthe other neighborsthey have to discuss

with the community uses or the property

that will be benecial to both the residents

and the institution. Its not a novel ap-

proach. I guarantee that they are teaching

their students courses on social responsibil-

itywhy dont they practice it a little bit in

their own backyard? (Axelbank 2007).

When the University o Pittsburgh

decided to expand into the adjacent Oak-

land district in the 1970s, it took the ap-

proach o nalizing a master plan internally

and then sharing it only with the Oakland

Chamber o Commerce and the City o

Pittsburghs planning departmentneither

o which oered major objections. But Oak-

land residents were upset by both the plan

and their exclusion rom the planning

process (Deitrick and Soska 2005).

L o S S o F PR o PER TYTAx REvENUE

Local governments generally see colleges

and universities as positive local economic

and cultural assets. In some cases, munici-

palities make trade-os when colleges and

universities want to expand, because they

want to improve their public image, create

potentially positive impacts on the local

economy, and attract a young population

and qualied labor orce to the area.

That was the case or the University o

South Florida St. Petersburg and the City o

St. Petersburg when the campus expanded

in the 1990s. The city played an important

role through the purchase o 142 parcels at

a cost o nearly $13 million, with the

assistance o the City Council, the St.

Cathedral Learning,

Uniersity Pittsburgh,

Pennsylania


23/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Petersburg Chamber o Commerce, the

State Legislature, and the Board o Regents.

Most o the property was transerred rom

city ownership to the university system and

was removed rom the tax rolls (Tobin 1989).

However, in an environment o rising

costs to maintain and improve public

services and inrastructure, most local gov-

ernments constantly look or new opportuni-

ties to expand their revenue sources. Although

colleges and universities contribute greatly

to urban economic and community develop-

ment, their tax-exempt status is a growing

concern or some governments, especially

when institutional expansion represents a

loss o potential property tax revenue.

Recent cutbacks in state and ederal aid

have prompted some cities to mobilize to

prevent academic institutions rom expand-

ing their campuses or to seek tax dollars

rom campus properties that generate reve-

nue or the institutions. Some o these cases

have caused long-running disputes between

the city and the university. For example, the

towngown dispute between the City o

Berkeley and the University o Caliornia

resulted in a reerendum calling or the

university to adhere to planning laws and

to pay $1.2 million in ees to the university

(Harasta 2008).

In another example, the City o Pitts-

burgh challenged the tax-exempt status o

a $22 million apartment building owned

by Duquesne University, which had bought

and converted the building into housing or

750 students as part o a multiyear plan to

increase enrollment. Although the purchase

meant more student housing or the univer-

sity, it also meant the loss o tax revenue

or the City o Pittsburgh (Associated

Press 2004).

Uniersity

Suth

Flrida St.

Petersburg


24/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 5

Positive Practices forTownGown Relations

Despite requent towngown

tensions, many colleges and

universities have engaged suc-

cessully with their host cities

and neighborhoods. A variety o practices

have shited the relationship rom being ad-

versarial to collaborative by joining stake-

holders in partnerships to achieve common

goals, acilitating buy-in rom the commu-

nity, and achieving long-lasting change.

IN C o R Po R AT IN G S o C IAL

AN D EC o N o M IC PR o G R AM S

Eective land development policy requires

coordination o social and economic pro-

grams (Fainstein 1994). Some colleges and

universities have succeeded in addressing

these issues in the process o revitalizing

the neighborhood or expanding to meet

their academic goals. Positive practices may

include providing aordable housing to pre-

vent displacement o residents, along with

promoting local business development.

Northeastern University in Boston,

Massachusetts, provides a good example o

this approach. The universitys Davenport

Commons project consists o 125 units o

housing or students and sta, 60 aordableowner-occupied townhouses, and 2,100

square eet o retail space. Community

members were concerned about a range

o issues related to the projects physical

design and the threat o neighborhood

gentrication.

The development process was complex,

involving many stakeholders and negotiations

Daenprt Cmmns,

Nrtheastern Uniersity,

Bstn, Massachusetts


25/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Calder, Grant, and Muson 2005). The

university partnered on the project with

Madison Park Development Corporation

(MPDC), a local community developmentcorporation, as well as with two local devel-

opers. Along with negotiating a community

benets package o aordable housing,

MPDC helped homeowners set up a con-

dominium association and provided both

technical assistance and education or

rst-time homebuyers.

In other cases, institutions have actively

promoted local business development by

giving neighborhood vendors priority (Strom

2005). For example, the University o Penn-

sylvania has a local contracting program

that generated more than $65 million in

business or West Philadelphia rms in 2002.

Nearly 90 percent o that spending was

directed to women- and minority-owned

businesses operating in the neighborhood.

M AN AG IN G S P I L L o v ER

EFFEC TS TH R o U G H PL AN N IN G

Cities and communities have put both

regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms

in place to manage the impact o university-

led land use and development through bal-

ancing the interests o the university, neigh-

boring residents, and the city as a whole

(Taylor 2007). Regulatory mechanisms in-

clude district plans, land use regulations, and

design standards to guide development and

encourage community participation in

project planning.

In Portland, Oregon, or example, the

planning processes o the city and its univer-

sities are largely intertwined. The goal is to

give institutions the support they need while

also providing the surrounding communities

greater certainty about how the area will be

developed. When Portland State University

(PSU) sought to expand in 1988, Portlands

Central City plan called or creation o a

new plan that would allow or this growth

and provide some direction or development

o the neighborhood.

The Portland Bureau o Planning created

the University District plan in collaborationwith the university and the Downtown

Community Association, integrating the

public vision or the downtown with the

needs o the university. The plan required

mixed uses and provided guidelines or

transit, retail, student and market-rate

housing, amenities, and academic acilities.

The plan also provided the regulatory

ramework needed or the desired uses

(Taylor 2007).

Nonregulatory mechanisms such as

Memorandums o Understanding (MOUs)

are used to manage interactions on specic

projects and to dene the roles and respon-

sibilities o each party. MOUs can address a

range o issues such as boundary determina-

tion or campus development, guidelines or

mitigating impacts on adjacent neighbor-

hoods, and standards or physical develop-

ment, including site planning, storm water

management, and roadway improvements.

Cllege Engineering

and Cmputer Science,

Prtland State Uniersity,

oregn


26/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

While there is no legal recourse i a party

ails to honor the MOU, these agreements

help to eliminate ambiguity about the roles

o the city and the university, while alsoproviding a mechanism to track progress

and monitor accountability (Taylor 2007).

San Jose State University, or example,

signed an MOU with the city in 2006 to

embark on a joint planning eortknown

as the South Campus District Planor

the community surrounding the university

(City o San Jose 2009). The partnership

envisioned the district as providing expanded

recreational amenities or residents along

with a regional acility or sports events and

tournaments. The plan also ocused on

improved parking and pedestrian accessibil-ity throughout the area. Having recognized

the need to involve a ull range o commu-

nity stakeholders, the city and university

dedicated a signicant part o the planning

process to community outreach and resi-

dent participation eorts.

IN TEG R AT IN G U N Iv ER S ITY

B U IL D IN G S TH R o U G H D ES IG N

The development requirements o the

modern urban campus are no longer served

by the separation o the university rom its

surroundings. Two new principles that guide

physical design include communicating

institutional values through the built envi-

ronment and nding points o intersection

with the local community (Blaik 2008).

These design principles have shaped

many mixed-use development projects and

helped to improve the integration o univ-

ersity buildings into a community. At the

University o Illinois at Chicago, South

Campus, or example, university buildings

are city buildings, with city services and

retail stores that are mixed with academic

acilities and student residences (Perry,

Wiewel, and Menendez 2009).

A citywide initiative at Syracuse Univer-

sity (SU) provides another good example

o eorts to integrate campus and city. The

Connective Corridor is a 1.5-mile, L-shaped

connector that ensures that students and ac-

ulty can get to the downtown, and that the

downtown can benet rom the university

and more than 25 arts and cultural venues

in the area. The goal is to stitch these loca-

tions together with new urban landscapes,

bike paths, imaginative lighting, public and

interactive art, and signage systems. The SU

Oce o Engagement is leading the initia-

tive, with support rom the city, the state, the

Uniersity Illinis

at Chicag


27/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

regional transportation authority, local utility

companies, and the arts community (The

Connective Corridor 2009).

The College o San Mateo in Caliorniahas received several awards or its College

Vista rental housing development or aculty

and sta. The 44-unit complex is located on

a ormer parking lot behind the Administra-

tion Building o the San Mateo County

Community College District.

Because o the vocal opposition o several

neighborhood groups to development at this

location, the principals o Education Hous-

ing Partners initiated an extensive outreach

campaign to understand community concerns

(College Vista 2009). The primary issues or

residents related to the introduction o aor-

dable housing in their backyard, and the

developments visual and economic impacts.

Through a series o meetings, the college

addressed these concerns to the neighbors

satisaction by making design modications

and creating operating guidelines to ensure

the long-term maintenance and upkeep

o the property.

Fo R M AL Iz IN G S TAkEHo L D ER

PART IC IPAT IoN AND

L EAD ER S H IP

Academic institutions, city governments,

and communities used to rely on quick xes

to problems that were episodic and project-

based or task-oriented (Perry and Wiewel

2005). These ad hoc approaches only solved

problems temporarily and did nothing to im-

prove overall university relations with the

city and neighborhood.

In developing more ormal relationships,

highly visible leadership and ongoing com-

munication rom all sides are essential. The

City o Boston, or example, has created a

position in the Mayors Oce to serve as

liaison with institutions o higher education.

Many universities have established an Oce

o Community Aairs or Oce o Commu-

nity Engagement. The leader o that oce

is typically someone rom the community

rather than rom the academic ranks. The

ocepreerably an adjunct to the Presi-dents Oceserves as both the portal

to the university and its liaison to the

community.

Several colleges and universities have also

developed ormal and ongoing relationships

with their neighbors. Clark University in

Worcester established a partnership with

local residents, businesses, and churches to

revitalize its neighborhood in the early 1980s.

This partnership with the Main South Com-

munity Development Corporation (MSCDC)

was ormalized in 1995, and Clark Univer-

sity holds a seat on the board o directors.

Now known as the University Park Part-

nership (UPP), its scope includes a broad-

based strategy emphasizing the development

o neighborhood amenities and the expan-

sion o economic opportunities or neigh-

borhood residents and businesses. The part-

nership has received unding rom a variety

o ederal and private sources. In 2004 it

was awarded the inaugural Carter Partner-

ship Award, the nations most prestigious

recognition or collaborations between univ-

ersities and their communities (Brown and

Geoghegan 2009).

A Partnership or Change is a project

initiated by the University o Wisconsin

Milwaukee and the City o Milwaukee to

advance the UWM campus and surround-

ing neighborhoods. This project originated

rom concerns about maintaining and en-

hancing the areas quality o lie, improving

the physical and social towngown relation-

ship, and nding appropriate strategies to

resolve campusneighborhood conficts.

The planning process or the neighbor-

hood engaged stakeholders to set priorities,

develop strategies, and identiy actions on

key issues. Several groups contributed to the

development o the plan, including neigh-


28/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

borhood associations, special interest groups,

two business improvement districts, the City

o Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, and the

university. The key principle o this initia-tive was a coordinated long-term strategy

or addressing neighborhood issues and to

create an ongoing universityneighborhood

collaboration (City o Milwaukee 2003).

o FFS ETT IN G TAx -ExEM PT

STATUS

With local governments under increasing

scal pressure, some cities and colleges havenegotiated arrangements to make payments

in lieu o taxes (PILOTs) and other ees,

in some cases through a participatory and

inclusive policy process. A range o practices,

policies, and programs related to PILOTs

has emerged at both the state and municipal

levels to compensate or the tax-exempt

status o nonprot institutions.

In 1929 Harvard University became the

rst recorded case o an academic institu-

tion paying PILOTs to a local government.Today, Harvard pays more than $2 million

annually to Cambridge, where its core cam-

pus is located. It also pays $3.8 million a

year until 2054 to the Town o Watertown,

where it recently purchased land, and in

2008 the university paid $1.9 million to the

City o Boston, where it owns several medi-

cal schools and research centers and where

it expects to build new acilities on land it

owns in other parts o the city.

The State o Connecticut instituted a

program in 1978 based on the recognition

that colleges and universities benet every-

one residing in the state, not only those who

happen to live in the particular city in which

an institution is located. To distribute the

tax burden more equitably within this rame-

work, the state makes payments to local

governments that have colleges, universities,

and hospitals in their jurisdictions to com-

pensate or the revenue oregone rom these

tax-exempt institutions. Although the state

is unable to reimburse the ull cost o the

property tax payments, unding levels were

close to 64 percent o the assessed taxes in

2004 (Leland 2006).

Leland (2006) has also identied several

city-level examples o PILOT programs. For

example, our colleges in Providence, Rhode

Island, agreed in 2003 to pay $50 million toHarard Yard, Harard Uniersity, Cambridge, Massachusetts


29/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the city over the next 20 years. In West Long

Branch, New Jersey, Monmouth University

is the townships largest employer and volun-

tarily contributes $190,000 a year to munici-

pal coers.

S U M M AR Y

Table 2 summarizes the towngown practices

that do and do not work in university land

use and development. The common require-

ment or solving the potential confict areas

identied aboveincluding social and

economic issues, spillover eects, planning

process, and tax-exempt statusis to bal-

ance academic and community interests

through a participatory and inclusive process.

Table 2

Uniersity Land Use and Deelpment: What wrs? What des nt?

City and Cmmunity

Cncerns What Wrs? What Des Nt?

Scial Euity Eorts to mitigate displacement and

gentrication, and to generate job opportu-

nities or local residents and businesses.

Ignoring the neighborhoods social and

economic context and issues that might

aect local residents and businesses.

Spiller Eects Regulatory and nonregulatory planning

mechanisms that balance the needs o

the academic and local communities.

Lack o planning by colleges

and universities.

Design Planning and developing the campus

in ways that blend the academic

and local communities.

Development that is out o character

with the surrounding neighborhood.

Planning Prcess A joint planning process that involves the

university, the community, and the city.

Finalizing university land use and

development plans internally.

Leadership Close involvement o the universitypresident or other top-level leaders in

developing and sustaining the commitment

to community engagement.

No ormal mechanism or senior ocialsto work with the city and community,

except on an ad hoc basis.

Ta-eempt Status Recognition o the uneven distribution

o tax burdens throughout the state.

Long-running disputes and court cases

between the universities and cities over

development projects and tax-exempt status.

Brwn Uniersity,

Pridence, Rhde Island


30/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 6

Moving Toward SuccessfulTownGown Collaborations

Colleges and universities decide

on a variety o property-related

actions. Some o them do not

require input rom their surround-

ing neighborhoods and host cities, such as

routine renovations o existing buildings

and the maintenance o grounds. Other

types o development activities may call

or bilateral decision making, such as joint

research centers between the university and

private industry. New or changing land use

and development decisions, however, tend

to be much more complex and contain the

seeds o uture conficts i the concerns o all

stakeholders are not addressed and resolved

satisactorily. This complexity puts land devel-

opment projects in the category o decisions

that require more dedicated collaborative

processes (gure 7).

It is clearly dicult to devise a ormula

or land use and development that unctions

eciently and eectively while also honor-

ing many stakeholders perspectives. More-

over, there is no single template or how such

a partnership should be ramed since each

situation is dierent. Several considerations

provide general guidelines or designing

successul towngown collaborations.

B AL AN C IN G U N Iv ER S ITY

AN D C o M M U N ITY IN TER ES TS

The undamental goals and interests o

universities, municipal governments, and

neighborhood residents obviously have

some common elements and others that are

divergent and potentially conficting. How-

ever, these anchor institutions, municipalities

and neighborhoods must recognize that they

are part o a large, complex system and

that their ates are intertwined.

Universities play an important role by

contributing to the economy, civic lie, and

Syracuse Uniersity,

New Yr


31/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

built environment o cities by attracting

human capital and technological innovation

and boosting the skills o the workorce. Thecity and neighborhood in turn support the

universitys ability to unction well by oer-

ing the public services and social and cul-

tural amenities that help to keep people

and jobs in the area.

Wo R k IN G To G ETH ER

To WAR D C o M M o N G o AL S

Universities and colleges are major land-

owners and powerul players with relatively

steady revenue streams. In contrast, commu-nity memberswhether residents or com-

munity organizationsoten have unstable

revenue sources at best, and are oten per-

ceived as impediments to development.

Any eort to develop a trusting relationship

must be mindul o this power imbalance

and strive to minimize the dierences. Accord-

ing to Judith Rodin, ormer president o

University o Pennsylvania, Universities

have a lot o great potential to be partners

within cities, but too oten are more like the

4,000-pound gorilla, exercising their inter-

ests in a way that isnt always neighbor-

hood-riendly (Chan 2007).

Working together to develop collaborative

projects helps to identiy common interests

and problems. True towngown collabora-

tion thus means that the university, city, and

neighborhood must work toward specic

goals and objectives by sharing responsibil-

ity, authority, and accountability or achiev-

ing results.

C R EAT IN G L AS T IN G C H AN G E

Successul collaboration requires a sucient

investment o time and resources rom each

stakeholder to create lasting change ounded

on ongoing communication and long-term

relationships. These eorts can generate good

will in the community and support in the

public sector, as well as a sense o cohesion

and cooperation within the university itsel.

By acknowledging each others concerns

and constraints, and the costs and benets

inherent in any long-term working relation-

ship, all parties can look to the uture as a

win-win opportunity or positive growth

and change.

Today, many universities and other

anchor institutions understand their unique

role in urban economic and community

development by becoming engaged with

their cities and neighborhoods. However,

Colleges and universities are the most suc-

cessul institutions o urban development to

the extent that they operate as ully vested

urban institutions, i.e., ully engaged in pro-

ducing the collective capacity o a range o

city leaders to achieve the multiple interests

o cities and communities, as well as univer-

sities, in ways that are mutually agreeable

(Perry, Wiewel, and Menendez 2009, 4).

figure 7

Land Use Deelpment and Planning Reuire

Cllabratie Decisin Maing

Bilateral Collaborative

University,

City and

Neighborhood

University

Only

University and

Business or

University and

Community

UniversityOnly

Stak

eholderInvolvement

Decision-making Continuum

Land use

development

and planning

Expert advice,

research funding, or capacity-

building projects

Renovation of

existing buildings

and landscapes


32/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adams, Carolyn. 2003. The meds and eds in

urban economic development.Journal o Urban

Aairs25 (5):571588.

Associated Press. 2004. Cities increasingly

challenge tax status o universities. USA Today,

March 16.

Axelbank, Rachel L. 2007. Community concern

grows as BC expansion continues.Jewish Advocate.

Benson, Lee, John L. Puckett, and Ira Harkavy.

2007.Deweys dream: Universities and democracies in an

age o education reorm. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press.

Blaik, Omar. 2008. Urban anchors: Creating

places, remaking cities. Paper presented at

University as Civic Partner Conerence, February

1416, 2008, Phoenix, AZ.

Bramwell, Allison, and David A. Wole. 2008.

Universities and regional economic development:

The entrepreneurial University o Waterloo.

Research Policy 37:11751187.

Brown, John, and Jacqueline Geoghegan. 2009.

Bringing the campus to the community: An ex-

amination o the Clark University park partner-

ship ater ten years. In The Impact o Large Land-

owners on Land Markets, ed. Raphael W. Bostic.Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute o Land

Policy.

Calder, Allegra, Gabriel Grant, and Holly Hart

Muson. 2005. No such thing as vacant land:

Northeastern University and Davenport Com-

mons. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 253267.

Chan, Sewell. 2007. When the gown devours the

town. The New York Times, November 16.

Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber. 2009. Larg-

est employers. http://www.cincinnatichamber.com/

liv_b.aspx?menu_id=180&id=7570

City o Milwaukee. 2003.A strategy and vision or the

UWM neighborhood. Milwaukee: Department o

City Development.

City o San Jose. South campus district plan 2009.

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/district_plan/

Clark, Terry N., ed. 2003. Urban amenities:

Lakes, opera, and juice barsdo they drive

development? In The city as an entertainment machine.

New York, NY: JAI Press/Elsevier.

r e f e r e n C e s

Coey, Brian, and Yonn Dierwechter. 2005.

The urban university as a vehicle or inner-city

renewal: The University o Washington,

Tacoma. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 8097.

College and University Impact Portal. 2009.

Economic impact report listing. http://www.

edu-impact.com/view/reports

College Vista. 2009. http://smccd.edu/accounts/

smccd/collegevista/

The Connective Corridor. 2009. Overview.

http://connectivecorridor.syr.edu/

Cummings, Scott, Mark Rosentraub, Mary

Domahidy, and Sarah Con. 2005. University

involvement in downtown revitalization: Man-

aging political and nancial risks. In Perry

and Wiewel 2005, 147174.

Deitrick, Sabina, and Tracy Soska. 2005. The

University o Pittsburgh and the Oakland neigh-

borhood: From confict to cooperation, or how

the 800-pound gorilla learned to sit withand

not onits neighbors. In Perry and Wiewel

2005, 2544.

Fainstein, Susan S. 1994. The city builders:

Property, politics, and planning in London and New York.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Florida, Richard. 2005. The ight o the creative

class: The new global competition or talent. London:

Harper Collins.

Glaeser, Edward. 2000. The new economies o

urban and regional growth. In The Oxord Hand-

book o Economic Geography, eds. G. L. Clark, M. S.

Gertler, and M. P. Feldman. Oxord: Oxord

University Press.

Harasta, Joe. 2008. Town-gown relations:

University and neighborhood leaders perceptions

o college and community relations. Ph.D. Thesis.

Wilmington University, New Castle, DE, July.

Harkavy, Ira, and Harmon Zuckerman. 1999.

Eds and meds: Cities hidden assets. Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution.

Herrick, Thaddeus. 2007. Campuses, companies

cozy up. The Wall Street Journal, July 11.

ICIC (Initiative or a Competitive Inner City) and

CEOs or Cities. 2002. Leveraging colleges and univer-

sities or urban economic revitalization: An action agenda.

Chicago, IL: CEOs or Cities.

Jan, Tracy. 2009. Harvard slows work on Allston

complex.Boston Globe, February 19, A1.

Kelley, Lawrence R., and Carl V. Patton.

2005. The university as an engine or downtown

renewal in Atlanta. In Perry and Wiewel 2005,

131146.

Kowalcky, Linda, and Gregory Perkins.

2006.Americas college town. Boston, MA: Boston

Redevelopment Authority Research Department.

Kurtz, Larry R. 2005. Leasing or prot and

control: The case o Victoria University at the

University o Toronto. In Perry and Wiewel

2005, 222238.

Leland, Pamela. 2006. Robbing Peter to pay

Paul: Concerns and contradictions in payments-

in-lieu-o-taxes (pilots) as a source o municipal

revenue. Working paper. Cambridge, MA:

Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.

Marcuse, Peter, and Cuz Potter. 2005. Columbia

Universitys heights: An ivory tower and its

communities. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 4564.

Mayeld, Loomis. 2001. Town and gown in

America: Some historical and institutional issues

o the engaged university. Education or Health14

(2):231240.

National Center or Education Statistics. 2009.

www.nces.ed.gov

National Science Foundation. 2008. Science and

engineering indicators. Washington DC: National

Science Board.

Perry, David C. 2008. Changing the research

paradigm: From applied to engaged. Paper

presented at University as Civic Partner Con-

erence, February 1416, 2008, Phoenix, AZ.

, and Wim Wiewel. 2005. The university

as urban developer. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe

and the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.

, Wim Wiewel, and Carrie Menendez.

2009. The city, communities, and universities:

360 degrees o planning and development. Work-

ing paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute o

Land Policy.

Pyatt, Rudolph A. 1998. In LeDroit Park,

Howard is teaching by example. The Washington

Post, December 28.


33/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Smith College. 2009. Ford Hall: Construction

Inormation. www.smith.edu/ordhall/construction/

background.php

Strom, Elizabeth. 2005. The political strategies

behind university-based development. In Perry

and Wiewel 2005, 116130.

Taylor, Jill S. 2007.Mechanisms or cities to manage:

Institutionally led real estate development. Working

paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute o

Land Policy.

Tobin, Thomas. 1989. Slowed USF plans keeping

land idle. St. Petersburg Times,January 22:1.

UC San Diego. 2008. A study o the economic

impact and benets o UC San Diego. http://

ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/EconomicImpact/pd/

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. American Commu-

nity Survey Population Estimates or 2007.

www.census.gov/acs/www/

Varga, A. 2000. Local academic knowledge trans-

ers and the concentration o economic activity.

Journal o Regional Science40 (2):289309.

Vidal, Avis, Nancy Nye, Christopher Walker,

Carlos Manjarrez, Clare Romanik. 2002. Lessons

rom the community outreach partnership center

program. Prepared or the U.S. Department o

Housing and Urban Development Oce o

Policy Development and Research.

Webber, Henry S. 2005. The University o

Chicago and its neighbors: A case study in com-

munity development. In Perry and Wiewel 2005,

6579.

Colleges and Universities

Cited in this Report

Boston College, Newton and Boston, Massachusetts

Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts

College o San Mateo, Caliornia

Columbia University, New York, New York

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Georgia State University, Atlanta

Harvard University, Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts

Howard University, Washington, DC

Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis

Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts

Portland State University, Oregon

Pratt Institute, New York, New York

San Jose State University, Caliornia

Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts

Syracuse University, New York

University o Caliornia, Berkeley

University o Caliornia, San DiegoUniversity o Cincinnati, Ohio

University o Illinois at Chicago

University o Maryland, College Park and Baltimore

University o MissouriSt. Louis

University o Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

University o Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

University o South Florida St. Petersburg

University o Washington, Tacoma

University o WisconsinMilwaukee

Victoria University at the University o Toronto, Canada

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts


34/36


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acnwledgments

I am deeply indebted to Rosalind Greenstein, ormer senior ellow and chair o the

Department o Economic and Community Development, whose guidance and suggestions

helped me with this report and during my tenure at the Institute. In recognition o the

importance o large-scale educational institutions in urban settings, she had started the

City, Land, and the University program in 2001 with Wim Wiewel, now president o Port-

land State University, and David C. Perry, now director o the Great Cities Institute at the

University o Illinois at Chicago. This multiyear collaborative project supported several

workshops and conerences, and produced numerous books and working papers

that can be viewed on the Lincoln Institute Web site (www.lincolninst.edu) .

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions o other sta at the Lincoln Institute.

Research assistant Courtney Knapp took on the task o collecting data and reviewing many

newspapers articles or this report. Project associate Harini Venkatesh, and department

administrators Anne Battis and Carol Arnaud provided valuable support to the program

over the past several years.

This report has also beneted immeasurably rom the close and critical reading

o earlier drats by Gregory K. Ingram, Marcia Fernald, Ann LeRoyer, David C. Perry,

and Wim Wiewel.

Crnell Uniersity,

Ithaca, New Yr


35/36

ordering Inrmatin

To download a ree copy o this report or

to order copies o the printed report, visit

www.lincolninst.edu and search by author or title.For additional inormation on discounted

prices or bookstores, multiple-copy orders,

and shipping and handling costs, send your

inquiry to [email protected].

Prductin Credits

P R O J E C T M A N A G E R

Ann LeRoyer

P R O J E C T E D I T O R

Marcia Fernald

D E S I G N & P R O D U C T I O N :

DG Communications/NonproftDesign.comP R I N T I N G :

Recycled Paper Printing, Boston

113 Brattle StreetCambridge, MA 02138-3400 USA

Phone: 617-661-3016 or800-526-3873

Fax: 617-661-7235 or800-526-3944

Web: www.lincolninst.edu

Email: [email protected]

Printed on recycled paper

using soy-based inks.

Lincln Institute Land Plicy

www.lincolninst.edu

Lincoln Institute is a private operating oundation whose mission is

to improve the quality o public debate and decisions in the areas

o land policy and land-related taxation in the United States and

around the world. The Institutes goals are to integrate theory and

practice to better shape land policy and to provide a nonpartisan

orum or discussion o the multidisciplinary orces that infuence

public policy. The Institute seeks to inorm decision making through

education, research, demonstration projects, and the dissemination

o inormation through publications, our Web site, and other media.

Lincoln Institute programs bring together scholars, practitioners,

public ocials, policy advisers, and involved citizens in a collegial

learning environment.

Phtgraphs

F R O N T C O V E R

Top let: Cornell University,

town-gown collaboration

Documents