Town-Gown Collaboration in Land Use and Development

Policy Focus Report • Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z Town–Gown Collaboration in Land Use and Development Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz

Policy Focus Report Series The policy focus report series is published by the Lincoln Institute of 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 findings, case studies, and contributions from scholars in a variety of academic disciplines, and from professional practitioners, local officials, and citizens in diverse communities.

About this Report Universities have entered into a new era of community engagement, but town–gown conflicts still exist—especially when institutions seek to expand at the campus edge. Building on the Lincoln Institute’s City, Land, and the University program, started in 2001, this policy focus report describes the evolving roles of colleges and universities in urban development; examines sources of tensions over land use and development decisions; and presents a variety of approaches that do and do not work in managing these conflicts. The report also offers several approaches to consider in designing successful collaborations among the university, the city, and the neighborhood.

About the Author Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz was a research associate at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy from 2004 to 2009. Her work focuses on strategies and collaborations that balance economic and community development goals in urban areas, such as community land trusts and the role of universities in planning and development. She earned her Master’s degree in city and regional planning from the University of Pennsylvania and her Ph.D. in public and international affairs from the University of Pittsburgh. Contact: [email protected]

113 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138-3400, USA www.lincolninst.edu

ISBN 978-1-55844-195-8 Policy Focus Report/Code PF022

Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 1 ......

Contents

2 Executive Summary

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

7 Chapter 2: Evolving Town–Gown Relations in Urban Development Economic Development Community Development

12 Chapter 3: University Motivations for Land Use and Development Projects Student Housing and Recreational Needs Research Facilities and Related Needs Revitalization of Adjacent Neighborhoods and Downtowns Land Banking for Future Use and Income

17 Chapter 4: City and Neighborhood Interests in University Land Development Social Equity Spillover Effects Involvement in the Planning Process Loss of Property Tax Revenue

22 Chapter 5: Positive Practices for Town–Gown Relations Incorporating Social and Economic Programs Managing Spillover Effects Through Planning Integrating University Buildings Through Design Formalizing Stakeholder Participation and Leadership Offsetting Tax-exempt Status Summary

28 Chapter 6: Moving Toward Successful Town–Gown Collaborations Balancing University and Community Interests Working Together Toward Common Goals Creating Lasting Change

30 References

32 Acknowledgments

Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 1 ......

Executive Summary

Boston olleges and universities are among reasons related to social and economic con- University the largest landowners and devel- cerns, quality of life in the neighborhood, opers in urban areas. To fulfill the planning and design process, and loss their mission, these institutions of property tax revenue. oftenC become involved in land development This policy focus report lays out the at the campus edge, whether to construct competing interests affected by university new dormitories and research facilities or to land use and development activities, and offset neighborhood decline. Their activities highlights some approaches that have and usually have an immediate impact on the have not worked in solving conflicts between neighborhood and even on the entire city. institutions and their communities. The When the use of urban land for univer- better approaches, of course, have the most sity purposes competes with its use for local potential for success when they balance priorities, conflicts inevitably arise. A variety academic and community needs through a of stakeholders—ranging from local govern- participatory and inclusive planning process. ments to nearby residents—may mobilize Institutions of higher education have to counter university land development for entered a new era of community engage-

2 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 3 ......

ment. While once functioning mainly as have substantial fixed assets and are not enclaves of intellectual pursuit, colleges and likely to relocate, the need for effective collab- universities today play a much broader role oration is increasing. At the same time these in the economic, social, and physical devel- institutions must achieve their missions in a opment of their host cities and neighbor- highly competitive environment and in a hoods. They have become key institutions, period of extreme fiscal pressure. often termed anchor institutions, in their Colleges and universities must seek to communities through their economic impacts be “fully vested” urban anchor institutions, on employment, spending, and work-force not only by advancing the goals of academia, development, as well as through their ability but also by coordinating their place-based to attract new businesses and highly skilled strategies with the interests of the city and individuals and to revitalize adjacent the community. When land use and devel- neighborhoods. opment conflicts are avoided or resolved This evolving situation presents new chal- amicably, both universities and communities lenges and opportunities for town–gown part- can reap the benefits of the resources that nerships. Because most of these institutions each has to offer.

University Land Use and Development: What works? What does not? City and Community Concerns What Works? What Does Not? Social Equity Efforts to mitigate displacement and Ignoring the neighborhood’s social and gentrification, and to generate job opportu- economic context and issues that might nities for local residents and businesses. affect local residents and businesses. Spillover Effects Regulatory and nonregulatory planning Lack of planning by colleges mechanisms that balance the needs of and universities. the academic and local communities. Design Planning and developing the campus Development that is out of character in ways that blend the academic with the surrounding neighborhood. and local communities. Planning Process A joint planning process that involves the Finalizing university land use and university, the community, and the city. development plans internally.

Leadership Close involvement of the university No formal mechanism for senior officials president or other top-level leaders in to work with the city and community, developing and sustaining the commitment except on an ad hoc basis. to community engagement. Tax-exempt Status Recognition of the uneven distribution Long-running disputes and court cases of tax burdens throughout the state. between the universities and cities over development projects and tax-exempt status.

2 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 3 ......

C h a p t e r 1 The City, Land, and the University

Photo of University of Hawaii iStock

University of Hawaii, Honolulu

University of Hawaii

nstitutions of higher education vary areas compared to the share of urban greatly, from community colleges, to population. Even in the very rural states small private and public liberal arts throughout the Midwest and South, colleges colleges, to large private and public and universities are more highly urbanized Iresearch universities. The United States has than the overall population. Among the a long history of small liberal arts colleges six states where these institutions are less and large land grant universities located in urbanized than the state population, the rural settings. Today, however, an average population shares in five of these states of 82 percent of all degree-granting public (California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, and private institutions are located in urban and New Jersey) exceed the U.S. average areas, and in 28 of the 50 states, the percen- of 79 percent. tage is greater than the national average. Until fairly recently, most urban colleges Moreover, institutions of higher education and universities remained enclaves of intel- in most states are more urbanized than their lectual pursuit that seldom collaborated with populations. Figure 1 shows the share of surrounding neighborhoods and host cities degree-granting public and private two-year to address common problems. This situa- and four-year institutions located in urban tion was the result of distinct and exclusive

4 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 5 ......

interests, missions, and practices. But over This new practice comes in response to the last 20 years, town–gown relationships external pressures, including criticism that have undergone a sea change that reflects a universities receive public support but ignore greater university interest in working actively the interests and concerns of their host with local governments, businesses, and communities (Mayfield 2001). This shift also community-based organizations (CBOs). reflects internal changes in academia, New language included in university mis- especially those based on enlightened self- sion statements provides evidence of this shift, interest (Benson, Puckett, and Harkavy such as “engagement,” “partnership,” and 2007). By their nature, colleges and univer- “reciprocity” (Perry 2008). Portland State sities are dynamic and constantly challenged University (“for excellence in . . . community by changes in political economy, funding, engagement”), Northeastern University demographics, communities, and educa- (“commitment to . . . urban engagement”), tional theory and practice. This dynamism and the University of Maryland (“engage has led institutions to expand their roles in the University more fully in. . . collaborative society and to improve their relations with partnership”) are just a few of the institutions their neighbors and their cities as a whole. that explicitly make strong community Despite a new period of collaboration relations part of their missions. among higher education, local government,

figure 1 In Most States, Universities Are More Urbanized Than the Population, 2007

MT ND ME OR MN VT NH ID SD WI NY MA WY MI CT RI IA PA NV NE NJ OH UT IL IN DE CO WV MD CA VA KS MO KY NC TN AZ OK NM AR SC Key: Ratio of share of urban universities to GA MS AL share of urban population TX LA <1.0 AK 1.0–1.2 FL 1.21–1.40 HI >1.40

Notes: The geographic classification is constructed from urban-centric rather than metro-centric criteria, representing urbanicity (city/suburb/rural) by population size of the institution’s location. This urban-centric locale code was assigned through a methodology developed by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division in 2005. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007); National Center for Education Statistics Web site.

4 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 5 ......

businesses, and community organizations, implications. First, even in the era of the town–gown conflicts still exist. The friction engaged university, land use and develop- is perhaps most apparent in land use and ment processes at the campus edge will development processes at the edge of cam- repeatedly put town–gown relations to the puses. Indeed, competition for the use of test. Second, nearly all real estate activities urban land between university activities and of universities and colleges are multifaceted neighborhood or citywide purposes has led and have multiple stakeholders, including to frequent conflicts over the last 20 years, residents, businesses, and local governments. and may be increasing in some places Third, land uses at the campus edge have (figure 2). become a crucial element in both the phy- The competing interests of the university, sical and socioeconomic character of cities the neighborhood, and the city have three and neighborhoods.

figure 2 Town-Gown Conflicts over Urban Land Use Persist

1,000

900

800

700

600 ticles

500

400 Newspaper Ar 300

200

100

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Note: Analysis is based on a search of LexisNexis for the number of all U.S. newspaper articles describing town–gown land use and development conflicts from 1990 to 2008. Town–gown Conflicts Index (1990=100).

6 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 7 ......

C h a p t e r 2 Evolving Town-Gown Relations in Urban Development

lobalization has presented cities ments have recognized the growing impor- Stata Center, with many new and persistent tance of colleges and universities as anchor Massachusetts challenges, especially during the institutions in economic and community Institute of Technology, current economic slowdown. development. This represents a shift in the Cambridge GAlmost all major metropolitan areas in the governance paradigm, since governments United States have been affected by these alone cannot address the complexity of changes that have either helped them attract today’s urban problems. This new paradigm new businesses and residents or left them encourages the creation of partnerships suffering from disinvestment and popula- among the public, private, and nonprofit tion loss. sectors to harness the collective capacity These economic and social changes in of all players to solve these issues. cities and neighborhoods have helped to Colleges and universities thus have a key reshape town–gown relationships. In both role to play with state and local governments advancing and declining cities, local govern- and nonprofits in areas as diverse as educa-

6 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 7 ......

tion and skills training, technology, indus- institutions of higher education provide trial performance, public health, and social technical support and specialized expertise and cultural development (Adams 2003; to firms (Bramwell and Wolfe 2008). Changes ICIC and CEOs for Cities 2002). in academic research and development funding patterns suggest how these university– E c o n o mic D e v el o pment private sector partnerships have evolved The importance of universities to their over the last 35 years (figure 3). While the local economies has long been recognized. federal government continues to provide Among their many economic impacts, the more than 60 percent of funds for academic most important ones are enhancing the research and development, industry sources industry and technology base, employing contributed 5 percent ($2.1 billion), and large numbers of people, and generating state and local government funding provided revenue for local governments through 6 percent ($2.6 billion) of the total in 2006. university expenditures on salaries, goods, Colleges and universities can enhance the and services. local technological base if firms locate nearby and coordinate their research efforts with Enhancing the Industry those institutions (Varga 2000). In recent and Technology Base years, technoparks or joint university- In the evolving knowledge economy, the industry research centers for ongoing, firm- contribution of the “creative class” is often based research and development have ex- seen as strategic and valuable for local econ- panded dramatically. A growing number of omic development (Florida 2005; Glaeser universities have become directly involved 2000). It is clear that institutions of higher in the incubation of newly established education can play an important role in scientific and technical companies. growing, attracting, and retaining knowl- For example, Worcester Polytechnic edge workers (Clark 2003). Institute (WPI) in Massachusetts, joined the Beyond preparing and attracting a Worcester Business Development Corpora- qualified workforce to the local economy, tion in developing Gateway Park, a 12-acre

figure 3 Industry and Governments Contribute Billions to Academic R&D

45,000

Notes: Institutional funds 40,000 All other sources encompass two categories: 35,000 institutionally financed and Academic organized research expendi- 30,000 institutions tures; and unreimbursed 25,000 Industry indirect costs and related State/local sponsored research. This 20,000 government category does not include departmental research, and 15,000 Federal government thus excludes funds (notably 10,000 for faculty salaries) in cases 2000 Constant $millions where research activities are 5,000 not budgeted separately. 0 Source: National Science Foundation (2008). 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

8 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 9 ......

Express Scripts at the University of Missouri–St. Louis

mixed-use development for life sciences and Generating Employment biotech companies and the people who work and Spending for them. The project includes five buildings Colleges and universities often rank among with 500,000 square feet of flexible lab space, the largest employers in metropolitan areas. plus 241,000 square feet of market-rate loft In 1997, these institutions employed more condominiums, restaurants, and business than 2.8 million workers, or more than 2 per- services, and a plan for graduate student cent of the total U.S. workforce. Approxi- housing on one of the sites. mately two-thirds are administrative and While many universities support incuba- support staff, and the remaining third are tors for newly established technical and scien- faculty (ICIC and CEOs for Cities 2002). In tific ventures, some also provide space for some local labor markets, such as Cincinnati, large, more mature companies on their cam- academic institutions surpassed other cor- puses. For example, Express Scripts, Inc., a porations as the leading employer (table 1). major pharmacy benefits management A 1999 survey of the top employers in company with almost $18 billion in annual the nation’s 20 largest cities found that edu- sales, located its headquarters at University cational and medical institutions accounted Place/NorthPark, on the campus of the for more than 50 percent of the jobs gene- University of Missouri–St. Louis (UMSL). rated in four of those cities (Washington, DC, The company’s criteria for selecting the Philadelphia, San Diego, and Baltimore). UMSL site included the ability to expand Moreover, these institutions were also the and the opportunity to collaborate with a top employers in every one of the 20 cities, university in developing information tech- despite differences in the age of the city, nology projects (Herrick 2007). its geographic region, population, and other

8 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 9 ......

Table 1 services was more than nine times the The University of Cincinnati Leads amount that the federal government spent Employers in the Greater Cincinnati Region on urban job creation and business devel- Number of opment in 1996. Employer Employees Although estimating the full multiplier

University of Cincinnati 15,862 effects of university spending is complex, numerous studies have demonstrated the Kroger Company 15,600 significance of this economic activity (College Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati 14,785 and University Impact Portal 2009). These The Procter & Gamble Company 12,315 effects, of course, vary by type of university (public or private), form of organization Cincinnati Children’s Hospital 9,464 Medical Center (single campus versus statewide system), and location (metropolitan area versus small town). TriHealth Inc 9,400 For example, a recent study by the Univer- Fifth Third Bank 7,645 sity of California at San Diego showed that Wal-mart Stores 7,500 its impact in the city included approximately $2.275 billion in direct and indirect spend- GE Aviation 7,400 ing, 20,790 direct and indirect jobs, and Mercy Health Partners 6,948 $1.228 billion in direct and indirect personal U.S. Postal Service 6,379 income (UC San Diego 2008).

Hamilton County 6,304 C o mmunity D e v el o pment Archdiocese of Cincinnati 6,150 Institutions of higher education have estab- Internal Revenue Service 6,000 lished more formal partnerships with their City of Cincinnati 5,441 communities in recent years, often providing technical assistance such as neighborhood Cincinnati Public Schools 5,055 planning or capacity-building for commu- Macy’s 4,700 nity-based organizations. For example, Pratt CBS Personnel Services 4,534 Institute’s Center for Community and En-

Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. 4,500 vironmental Design has developed long- term relationships with a variety of mature Miami University 4,399 CBOs in New York City, facilitated a collab- Source: Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber (2009). orative planning process with several community partners, and helped to develop socioeconomic characteristics (Harkavy joint agendas driven by local stakeholders and Zuckerman 1999). (Vidal et al. 2002). Universities also generate desirable local The Center for Community Partnerships economic impacts because they purchase at the University of Pennsylvania has engaged large amounts of goods and services in the in efforts to integrate academic work with local marketplace, and because most of the needs of the community in West Phila- their expenditures are distributed as salaries, delphia (Strom 2005). Academically based which tend to be spent locally. They also community service (ABCS) is just one of generate large amounts of student spending. these activities, which is rooted in problem- According to the ICIC (2002, 7), urban oriented research and teaching. The univer- university spending on salaries, goods, and sity offers approximately 160 ABCS courses

10 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 11 ......

HUD-supported housing, Howard University, Washington, DC

in a wide range of disciplines and schools is HUD’s primary vehicle for helping col- and in a variety of areas such as the envi- leges and universities apply their human, ronment, health, education, and the arts. intellectual, and institutional resources to Other university initiatives intended to sup- the revitalization of distressed communities. port community development include skills In its first decade of operation, the program training (generally in classes for residents), granted about $45 million to more than professional services (such as visiting nurses 100 colleges and universities for such efforts or legal clinics), information technology as job training and counseling to reduce (such as shared databases or training for unemployment; resident-backed strategies CBO staff), and technical assistance to small to spur economic growth and reduce crime; businesses. These activities have attracted local initiatives to combat housing discrimi- funding from a variety of sources including nation and homelessness; mentoring pro- the Office of University Partnerships at the grams for neighborhood youth; and finan- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban cial and technical assistance for new Development (HUD). businesses. Launched in 1994, the Community Out- reach Partnerships Centers (COPC) program

10 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 11 ......

c h a p t e r 3 University Motivations for Land Use and Development Projects

North Point High-Rise olleges and universities have S tudent H o using and Dormitory, University of emerged as some of the largest R ecreati o nal N eeds California, San Diego landowners and developers in Colleges and universities often invest in land their cities, exerting a powerful and new buildings to meet growing demands Cinfluence on the built environment (Perry for on-campus housing and recreational and Wiewel 2005). At the end of fiscal year facilities. Some of this pressure reflects a 1996, urban institutions held almost $100 more than 50 percent increase in U.S. col- billion in land and buildings (book value), lege enrollment between 1970 and 2005, including $8 billion in purchases from only with continuing growth projected (figure 4). the prior year (ICIC and CEOs for Cities In addition to the traditional practice of 2002). They have several motivations for providing housing to freshmen and some- undertaking land development activities: times all students, many colleges and univer- ensuring their capacity to meet growing sities are making the transition from being demands for student housing and other facil- primarily commuter schools to more tradi- ities; fulfilling their educational and research tional residential campuses by adding student agenda; enhancing the quality and security dormitories and expanding sports facilities. of their surroundings; and maintaining or Some of the schools that have recently made improving their reputation and standing. this shift are the University of South Florida

12 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 13 ......

figure 4 Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions Has Climbed Steadily Since 1970

25,000

20,000 Student Age 35 and over 15,000 30 to 34 25–29 10,000 20–24

Enrollment (000s) 14–19 5,000

0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year

Note: Data include undergraduate, graduate, full-time, and part-time students. Data for 1975, 1985, 2010, and 2015 are obtained using linear interpolation based on existing data for the other years. Source: National Center for Education Statistics Web site.

in Tampa; Northeastern University in Boston, The Lofts opened in 2002 and contains 231 Massachusetts; the University of Nebraska apartments for 460 residents, parking, and at Omaha; Wayne State University in Detroit, street-level retail space. It was built on land Michigan; La Salle University in Philadelphia, owned by a local hospital and used as a sur- Pennsylvania; and San Jose State University face parking lot. The hospital agreed to a in California. 40-year lease of the land for the expansion In some cases, universities lack land for of student housing. housing or recreational projects, and must In 2007, the university developed a look for alternatives on the edge of campus. third project of 2,000 units of undergradu- That was the case for Georgia State Univer- ate housing north of campus on a six-acre sity in Atlanta when it made the transition site bought from a former auto dealership. to a traditional campus-style university in This $168 million project was funded by the 1993. Georgia State invested in building largest bond issue in the United States for both undergraduate and graduate student the purpose of housing students. housing as a way to create a viable community (Kelley and Patton 2005). R esearch Facilities Three housing development projects and R elated N eeds are notable. Georgia State Village includes Many colleges and universities took on an housing converted from Atlanta’s Olympic expanded role in basic scientific research Village, located one-and-a-half miles from and in research and development (R&D) the campus on the edge of downtown. The after World War II. Between 1970 and 2006, university purchased the Olympic Village academia’s share of all R&D in the United after the games and opened the facility in States rose from about 10 percent to about 1996 as housing for 2,000 undergraduates. 14 percent (figure 5). In 2006, these institu- The second project, University Lofts, tions conducted more than 30 percent of offers housing for graduate and internation- the nation’s basic research and were second al students on the edge of the campus. only to the business sector in performing R&D.

12 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 13 ......

One direct implication of this new focus is the addition of research facilities to campus activities. Indeed, institutions that conduct research built more space for that work on their campuses from 2001 to 2005 than in any other five-year period since at least 1988. They added some 185 million net assignable square feet for research between fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2005 alone (figure 6). In 2005, 64 percent of newly built research space and 67 percent of construction funds 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, for example, became the nation’s first women’s college to have an engineering school in 2000. While the new academic major quickly became one of the most popular on campus, development of the engineering program was limited by the college’s aging science buildings and the lack of space to build new facilities. Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts

figure 5 Academia’s Shares of Research Have Increased Especially Since 2000

40 Basic Research 35 R&D 30

10 rcent of National Activity Pe 5

86 96 00 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 19 1988 1990 1992 1994 19 1998 20 2002 2004 2006

Source: National Science Foundadtion (2008).

14 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 15 ......

figure 6 Growth in Academic Research Space Continues

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

Millions of net square feet 40 20 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Note: Data for 2000, 2002, and 2004 are obtained using linear interpolation based on existing data for the other years. Source: National Science Foundation (2008).

To accommodate its growing role in activities or create entities that will have a women’s science and engineering education, significant local economic impact or serve Smith had to demolish a number of college- as the centerpiece of a downtown revival owned properties that had provided housing program. These activities may include and retail space (Smith College 2009). The developing retail stores and housing, en- college offered tenants relocation informa- hancing historic landmarks or parks, im- tion and financial assistance, and has worked proving local schools, and even providing with developers to provide affordable hous- sanitation and security services for the area. ing nearby. Howard University in Washington, DC, had been buying and holding blighted prop- R e v itali z ati o n o f erty near its campus for decades, and in 1997 A d j acent N eighb o rh o o ds launched a massive revitalization initiative and D ownt o wns in LeDroit Park. The initial plan was to For some colleges and universities, the rehabilitate 28 vacant houses and build primary driver of land development is their new housing on 17 additional vacant lots. desire to enhance the surrounding neigh- Since then, Howard has expanded its borhood and promote urban revitalization. plans to include rehabilitation of a former Unlike corporations that might choose to bread factory into university offices and a leave a distressed area, most universities community association center; renovation are place-bound. In the past, institutions of a neighborhood hospital; opening of a responded to a decline in their communities neighborhood security office; completion simply by putting up walls and expanding of street and alley resurfacing, sidewalk police or security services. bricking, tree planting, and traffic-calming More recently, however, urban colleges measures; redevelopment of open space; and universities have tried to spur economic a major telecommunications infrastructure and community development beyond their project; and a home-ownership program for borders. Indeed, universities now sponsor Howard employees and local residents.

14 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 15 ......

In September 2008, Howard received a their governing offices to Indianapolis in $700,000 Office of University Partnership 1989, and the National Collegiate Athletic grant from HUD to begin restoration of Association followed in 1999. Development the historic Howard Theatre, expand local of the IUPUI campus has been identified as business development programs, and address one of the principal economic development accessibility issues at the community asso- engines for downtown Indianapolis (Cum- ciation center (Pyatt 1998). mings et al. 2005). In another example, the City of India- napolis attempted to revitalize its declining L and B an k ing f o r downtown throughout the 1980s and 1990s. F uture U se and I nc o me By directly engaging Indiana University– Colleges and universities acquire and Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) develop land to diversify their portfolios and as an important player in the city’s larger to control development at the campus peri- urban development agenda, the city tar- phery. Many universities construct mixed- geted the arts, entertainment, tourism, and use buildings or purchase commercial and sports facilities as central strategies. IUPUI industrial properties that will be leased to and the associated Indiana University Medi- generate revenue rather than redeveloped cal School and hospital acquired many acres into traditional campus buildings. of land to permit expansion. Local corpora- Victoria University at the University tions, business leaders, the Lilly Foundation, of Toronto has created a large portfolio of and state government strongly supported properties acquired over decades. While its the university’s land acquisition policies original goals were to accommodate possible and programs. future needs and control development at From 1974 through 1999, more than 50 the campus edge, the university eventually major development projects were initiated created mixed-use developments and then in the downtown area, and the university’s leased the properties (Kurtz 2005). Today, investment in the Indianapolis campus the university has a stable real estate income totaled more than $230 million. Several of stream with almost half of its endowment the projects were related to sports activities. based in real estate while the other half Seven national sports organizations moved is invested in securities.

16 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 17 ......

c h a p t e r 4 City and Neighborhood Interests in University Land Development

lthough city officials, neighbor- to maintain the stability and character hood residents, and local busi- of their neighborhoods. Concerns about nesses generally see universities university expansions generally relate to and colleges as positive economic social equity due to displacement of resi- Aand cultural assets, clashes between town dents and businesses; spillover effects that and gown are commonplace, especially in erode quality of life; lack of community land use and development processes. Institu- involvement in the planning process; tions of higher education often find them- and loss of property tax revenues. selves at odds with residents whose goals are

University of Washington, Tacoma

16 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 17 ......

S o cial E q uity businesses, and sometimes the destruction As colleges and universities have become of historic sites. important drivers of urban revitalization These kinds of concerns often arise and as they expand to meet their academic even when other economic impacts may be missions, their actions (and inactions) have considered positive for the city or community. raised social equity concerns among neigh- For example, as cited in the previous chapter, borhood residents, businesses, and nonprofit Indiana University–Purdue University agencies. These stakeholders have argued helped to anchor urban redevelopment in that educational institutions largely ignore Indianapolis, but it changed the class and neighborhood social issues and problems to racial composition of the downtown and such an extent that they have created a displaced an historic section of the city’s climate of distrust. In some cases, policies African–American community (Cummings aimed at neighborhood redevelopment have et al. 2005). Columbia University, had little regard for social impacts related In the late 1980s, the University of New York, New York to displacement of long-time residents and Washington announced that a new branch would be developed in Tacoma near the central business district in a largely aban- doned former warehouse district. Although the new campus has spurred investment in an economically depressed area, protected some historic buildings, and received strong support from some sectors, residents of a nearby low-income neighborhood com- plained that the university was ignoring their needs and concerns, and was providing only upper-end jobs (Coffey and Dierwechter 2005). Columbia University’s development plans led to similar conflicts. The school is one of the largest landowners in New York City, after the Catholic Church and the city government (Marcuse and Potter 2005). Its planned expansion into an area of West Harlem/Manhattanville raised major objections from the neighborhood, primarily related to the potential displacement of long-time residents and businesses through gentrification.

S pill o v er E ffects Universities and colleges primarily acquire land and structures that support their core mission or immediate growth demands. It is not uncommon, however, for surrounding communities to criticize universities for their

18 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 19 ......

unresponsive development policies or lack of a plan to mitigate negative spillover effects. For neighborhood residents, some of the major concerns relate to quality of life issues, such as conversion of houses and other buildings to student occupancy; upward pressure on rents; adaptation of shops and facilities to student markets; and increases in traffic, noise, and parking problems (Harasta 2008). The presence of students is typically the greatest concern to residents, and both on- and off-campus student housing have locational impacts. Residents often try to block attempts to expand student housing out of fear that development of new dormitories will alter the character of their neighborhoods. In addition, many students seek private housing in nearby neighborhoods that may be unprepared or unwilling to receive them. In Boston, for example, 42 percent of the nearly 62,000 students attending local Harvard put the project on hold. Both neigh- Harvard University, colleges and universities lived off campus borhood residents and the City of Boston Allston, Massachusetts in 2006. While students have moved into raised concerns about the delay—primarily all 20 Boston neighborhoods, slightly more relating to the university’s lack of a plan than half are concentrated in just four of for using the parcels and for improving the them (Kowalcky and Perkins 2006). neighborhood in the meantime (Jan 2009). Land banking is another issue for neighborhoods and municipalities. As major land- I n v o lv ement in the owners, colleges and universities hold some P lanning P r o cess parcels until they have a specific need for Universities see their faculty, students, development. During the current economic alumni, and donors as their primary con- downturn, declines in financial resources stituencies, and their development priorities such as endownment funds or state monies are designed to meet the requirements of may lead institutions to slow their expansion these groups (Webber 2005). But because plans and leave land parcels vacant. If town– their land and building policies are embed- gown relations are strained when universities ded in the larger urban fabric, colleges and feel flush with cash, they clearly will be universities in fact have a broader consti- tested in times of financial distress. tuency that can result in complex and Harvard University, for example, plan- conflict-ridden interactions. ned to construct a $1 billion science com- Residents who share space with colleges plex on part of the 250 acres that it owns in and universities often want to be active the Allston neighborhood of Boston. After participants in determining future land uses a sharp drop in its endowment fund in 2009, and development in their neighborhoods. As

18 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 19 ......

one community member said when discuss- and their exclusion from the planning ing Boston College’s expansion plans in the process (Deitrick and Soska 2005). Brighton section of Boston, “You have a neighbor who is acting without concern for L o ss o f P r o perty the other neighbors—they have to discuss Ta x R e v enue with the community uses for the property Local governments generally see colleges that will be beneficial to both the residents and universities as positive local economic and the institution. It’s not a novel ap- and cultural assets. In some cases, munici- proach. I guarantee that they are teaching palities make trade-offs when colleges and their students courses on social responsibil- universities want to expand, because they ity—why don’t they practice it a little bit in want to improve their public image, create their own backyard?” (Axelbank 2007). potentially positive impacts on the local When the University of Pittsburgh economy, and attract a young population decided to expand into the adjacent Oak- and qualified labor force to the area. land district in the 1970s, it took the ap- That was the case for the University of proach of finalizing a master plan internally South Florida St. Petersburg and the City of and then sharing it only with the Oakland St. Petersburg when the campus expanded Chamber of Commerce and the City of in the 1990s. The city played an important

Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh’s planning department—neither role through the purchase of 142 parcels at University of Pittsburgh, of which offered major objections. But Oak- a cost of nearly $13 million, with the Pennsylvania land residents were upset by both the plan assistance of the City Council, the St.

20 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 21 ......

University of South Florida St. Petersburg

Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, the nue for the institutions. Some of these cases State Legislature, and the Board of Regents. have caused long-running disputes between Most of the property was transferred from the city and the university. For example, the city ownership to the university system and town–gown dispute between the City of was removed from the tax rolls (Tobin 1989). Berkeley and the University of California However, in an environment of rising resulted in a referendum calling for the costs to maintain and improve public university to adhere to planning laws and services and infrastructure, most local gov- to pay $1.2 million in fees to the university ernments constantly look for new opportuni- (Harasta 2008). ties to expand their revenue sources. Although In another example, the City of Pitts- colleges and universities contribute greatly burgh challenged the tax-exempt status of to urban economic and community develop- a $22 million apartment building owned ment, their tax-exempt status is a growing by Duquesne University, which had bought concern for some governments, especially and converted the building into housing for when institutional expansion represents a 750 students as part of a multiyear plan to loss of potential property tax revenue. increase enrollment. Although the purchase Recent cutbacks in state and federal aid meant more student housing for the univer- have prompted some cities to mobilize to sity, it also meant the loss of tax revenue prevent academic institutions from expand- for the City of Pittsburgh (Associated ing their campuses or to seek tax dollars Press 2004). from campus properties that generate reve-

20 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 21 ......

c h a p t e r 5 Positive Practices for Town–Gown Relations

Davenport Commons, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts

espite frequent town–gown the neighborhood or expanding to meet tensions, many colleges and their academic goals. Positive practices may universities have engaged suc- include providing affordable housing to pre- cessfully with their host cities vent displacement of residents, along with andD neighborhoods. A variety of practices promoting local business development. have shifted the relationship from being ad- Northeastern University in Boston, versarial to collaborative by joining stake- Massachusetts, provides a good example of holders in partnerships to achieve common this approach. The university’s Davenport goals, facilitating buy-in from the commu- Commons project consists of 125 units of nity, and achieving long-lasting change. housing for students and staff, 60 affordable owner-occupied townhouses, and 2,100 I nc o rp o rating S o cial square feet of retail space. Community and E c o n o mic P r o grams members were concerned about a range Effective land development policy requires of issues related to the project’s physical coordination of social and economic pro- design and the threat of neighborhood grams (Fainstein 1994). Some colleges and gentrification. universities have succeeded in addressing The development process was complex, these issues in the process of revitalizing involving many stakeholders and negotiations

22 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 23 ......

(Calder, Grant, and Muson 2005). The and provide some direction for development university partnered on the project with of the neighborhood. Madison Park Development Corporation The Portland Bureau of Planning created (MPDC), a local community development the University District plan in collaboration corporation, as well as with two local devel- with the university and the Downtown opers. Along with negotiating a community Community Association, integrating the benefits package of affordable housing, public vision for the downtown with the MPDC helped homeowners set up a con- needs of the university. The plan required dominium association and provided both mixed uses and provided guidelines for technical assistance and education for transit, retail, student and market-rate first-time homebuyers. housing, amenities, and academic facilities. In other cases, institutions have actively The plan also provided the regulatory promoted local business development by framework needed for the desired uses giving neighborhood vendors priority (Strom (Taylor 2007). 2005). For example, the University of Penn- Nonregulatory mechanisms such as sylvania has a local contracting program Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) that generated more than $65 million in are used to manage interactions on specific business for West Philadelphia firms in 2002. projects and to define the roles and respon- Nearly 90 percent of that spending was sibilities of each party. MOUs can address a directed to women- and minority-owned range of issues such as boundary determina- businesses operating in the neighborhood. tion for campus development, guidelines for

mitigating impacts on adjacent neighbor- College of Engineering M anaging S pill o v er hoods, and standards for physical develop- and Computer Science, E ffects T hr o ugh P lanning ment, including site planning, storm water Portland State University, Cities and communities have put both management, and roadway improvements. Oregon regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms in place to manage the impact of university- led land use and development through balancing the interests of the university, neigh- boring residents, and the city as a whole (Taylor 2007). Regulatory mechanisms include district plans, land use regulations, and design standards to guide development and encourage community participation in project planning. In Portland, Oregon, for example, the planning processes of the city and its universities 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, Portland’s Central City plan called for creation of a new plan that would allow for this growth

22 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 23 ......

While there is no legal recourse if a party recreational amenities for residents along fails to honor the MOU, these agreements with a regional facility for sports events and help to eliminate ambiguity about the roles tournaments. The plan also focused on of the city and the university, while also improved parking and pedestrian accessibil- providing a mechanism to track progress ity throughout the area. Having recognized and monitor accountability (Taylor 2007). the need to involve a full range of commu- San Jose State University, for example, nity stakeholders, the city and university signed an MOU with the city in 2006 to dedicated a significant part of the planning embark on a joint planning effort—known process to community outreach and resi- as the South Campus District Plan—for dent participation efforts. the community surrounding the university University of Illinois (City of San Jose 2009). The partnership I ntegrating U ni v ersity at Chicago envisioned the district as providing expanded B uildings T hr o ugh D esign The development requirements of the modern urban campus are no longer served by the separation of the university from its surroundings. Two new principles that guide physical design include communicating institutional values through the built environment and finding points of intersection with the local community (Blaik 2008). These design principles have shaped many mixed-use development projects and helped to improve the integration of university buildings into a community. At the University of Illinois at Chicago, South Campus, for example, university buildings are “city buildings,” with city services and retail stores that are mixed with academic facilities and student residences (Perry, Wiewel, and Menendez 2009). A citywide initiative at Syracuse Univer- sity (SU) provides another good example of efforts to integrate campus and city. The Connective Corridor is a 1.5-mile, L-shaped connector that ensures that students and faculty can get to the downtown, and that the downtown can benefit from 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 Office of Engagement is leading the initiative, with support from the city, the state, the

24 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 25 ......

regional transportation authority, local utility nity Engagement. The leader of that office companies, and the arts community (The is typically someone from the community Connective Corridor 2009). rather than from the academic ranks. The The College of San Mateo in California office—preferably an adjunct to the Presi- has received several awards for its College dent’s Office—serves as both the portal Vista rental housing development for faculty to the university and its liaison to the and staff. The 44-unit complex is located on community. a former parking lot behind the Administra- Several colleges and universities have also tion Building of the San Mateo County developed formal and ongoing relationships Community College District. with their neighbors. Clark University in Because of the vocal opposition of several Worcester established a partnership with neighborhood groups to development at this local residents, businesses, and churches to location, the principals of Education Hous- revitalize its neighborhood in the early 1980s. ing Partners initiated an extensive outreach This partnership with the Main South Com- campaign to understand community concerns munity Development Corporation (MSCDC) (College Vista 2009). The primary issues for was formalized in 1995, and Clark Univer- residents related to the introduction of affor- sity holds a seat on the board of directors. dable housing “in their backyard,” and the Now known as the University Park Part- development’s visual and economic impacts. nership (UPP), its scope includes a broad- Through a series of meetings, the college based strategy emphasizing the development addressed these concerns to the neighbors’ of neighborhood amenities and the expan- satisfaction by making design modifications sion of economic opportunities for neigh- and creating operating guidelines to ensure borhood residents and businesses. The part- the long-term maintenance and upkeep nership has received funding from a variety of the property. of federal and private sources. In 2004 it was awarded the inaugural Carter Partner- F o rmali z ing S ta k eh o lder ship Award, the nation’s most prestigious Participati o n and recognition for collaborations between univ- L eadership ersities and their communities (Brown and Academic institutions, city governments, Geoghegan 2009). and communities used to rely on quick fixes A Partnership for Change is a project to problems that were episodic and project- initiated by the University of Wisconsin– based or task-oriented (Perry and Wiewel Milwaukee and the City of Milwaukee to 2005). These ad hoc approaches only solved advance the UWM campus and surround- problems temporarily and did nothing to im- ing neighborhoods. This project originated prove overall university relations with the from concerns about maintaining and en- city and neighborhood. hancing the area’s quality of life, improving In developing more formal relationships, the physical and social town–gown relation- highly visible leadership and ongoing com- ship, and finding appropriate strategies to munication from all sides are essential. The resolve campus–neighborhood conflicts. City of Boston, for example, has created a The planning process for the neighbor- position in the Mayor’s Office to serve as hood engaged stakeholders to set priorities, liaison with institutions of higher education. develop strategies, and identify actions on Many universities have established an Office key issues. Several groups contributed to the of Community Affairs or Office of Commu- development of the plan, including neigh-

24 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 25 ......

borhood associations, special interest groups, o F F S E T T I N G Ta x - e x empt two business improvement districts, the City S tatus of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, and the With local governments under increasing university. The key principle of this initia- fiscal pressure, some cities and colleges have tive was a coordinated long-term strategy negotiated arrangements to make payments for addressing neighborhood issues and to in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) and other fees, create an ongoing university–neighborhood in some cases through a participatory and collaboration (City of Milwaukee 2003). inclusive policy process. A range of practices, policies, and programs related to PILOTs has emerged at both the state and municipal levels to compensate for the tax-exempt status of nonprofit institutions. In 1929 Harvard University became the first recorded case of an academic institution paying PILOTs to a local government. Today, Harvard pays more than $2 million annually to Cambridge, where its core campus is located. It also pays $3.8 million a year until 2054 to the Town of Watertown, where it recently purchased land, and in 2008 the university paid $1.9 million to the City of Boston, where it owns several medical schools and research centers and where it expects to build new facilities on land it owns in other parts of the city. The State of Connecticut instituted a program in 1978 based on the recognition that colleges and universities benefit 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 framework, the state makes payments to local governments that have colleges, universities, and hospitals in their jurisdictions to compensate for the revenue foregone from these tax-exempt institutions. Although the state is unable to reimburse the full cost of the property tax payments, funding levels were close to 64 percent of the assessed taxes in 2004 (Leland 2006). Leland (2006) has also identified several city-level examples of PILOT programs. For example, four colleges in Providence, Rhode Harvard Yard, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Island, agreed in 2003 to pay $50 million to

26 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 27 ......

Table 2 University Land Use and Development: What works? What does not? City and Community Concerns What Works? What Does Not? Social Equity Efforts to mitigate displacement and Ignoring the neighborhood’s social and gentrification, and to generate job opportu- economic context and issues that might nities for local residents and businesses. affect local residents and businesses. Spillover Effects Regulatory and nonregulatory planning Lack of planning by colleges mechanisms that balance the needs of and universities. the academic and local communities. Design Planning and developing the campus Development that is out of character in ways that blend the academic with the surrounding neighborhood. and local communities. Planning Process A joint planning process that involves the Finalizing university land use and university, the community, and the city. development plans internally.

the city over the next 20 years. In West Long Branch, New Jersey, Monmouth University is the township’s largest employer and volun- tarily contributes $190,000 a year to municipal coffers.

S ummary Table 2 summarizes the town–gown practices that do and do not work in university land use and development. The common requirement for solving the potential conflict areas identified above—including social and economic issues, spillover effects, planning process, and tax-exempt status—is to balance academic and community interests through a participatory and inclusive process.

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

26 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 27 ......

C h a p t e r 6 Moving Toward Successful Town–Gown Collaborations

Syracuse University, New York

olleges and universities decide efficiently and effectively while also honor- on a variety of property-related ing many stakeholders’ perspectives. More- actions. Some of them do not over, there is no single template for how such require input from their surround- a partnership should be framed since each Cing neighborhoods and host cities, such as situation is different. Several considerations routine renovations of existing buildings provide general guidelines for designing and the maintenance of grounds. Other successful town–gown collaborations. types of development activities may call for bilateral decision making, such as joint B alancing U ni v ersity research centers between the university and and C o mmunity interests private industry. New or changing land use The fundamental goals and interests of and development decisions, however, tend universities, municipal governments, and to be much more complex and contain the neighborhood residents obviously have seeds of future conflicts if the concerns of all some common elements and others that are stakeholders are not addressed and resolved divergent and potentially conflicting. How- satisfactorily. This complexity puts land devel- ever, these anchor institutions, municipalities opment projects in the category of decisions and neighborhoods must recognize that they that require more dedicated collaborative are part of a large, complex system and processes (figure 7). that their fates are intertwined. It is clearly difficult to devise a formula Universities play an important role by for land use and development that functions contributing to the economy, civic life, and

28 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 29 ......

built environment of cities by attracting figure 7 human capital and technological innovation Land Use Development and Planning Require and boosting the skills of the workforce. The Collaborative Decision Making city and neighborhood in turn support the university’s ability to function well by offer- ing the public services and social and cul- University, Land use City and development tural amenities that help to keep people Neighborhood and planning and jobs in the area.

W o r k ing T o gether University and

volvement Expert advice, T oward C o mm o n G o als Business or research funding, or capacity- University and Universities and colleges are major land- building projects Community owners and powerful players with relatively eholder In steady revenue streams. In contrast, commu- Stak Renovation of nity members—whether residents or com- University existing buildings munity organizations—often have unstable Only and landscapes revenue sources at best, and are often per- ceived as impediments to development. Any effort to develop a trusting relationship University Bilateral Collaborative must be mindful of this power imbalance Only and strive to minimize the differences. Accord- Decision-making Continuum ing to Judith Rodin, former president of University of Pennsylvania, “Universities public sector, as well as a sense of cohesion have a lot of great potential to be partners and cooperation within the university itself. within cities, but too often are more like the By acknowledging each other’s concerns 4,000-pound gorilla, exercising their inter- and constraints, and the costs and benefits ests in a way that isn’t always neighbor- inherent in any long-term working relation- hood-friendly” (Chan 2007). ship, all parties can look to the future as a Working together to develop collaborative win-win opportunity for positive growth projects helps to identify common interests and change. and problems. True town–gown collabora- Today, many universities and other tion thus means that the university, city, and anchor institutions understand their unique neighborhood must work toward specific role in urban economic and community goals and objectives by sharing responsibil- development by becoming engaged with ity, authority, and accountability for achiev- their cities and neighborhoods. However, ing results. “Colleges and universities are the most successful institutions of urban development to C reating L asting C hange the extent that they operate as ‘fully vested’ Successful collaboration requires a sufficient urban institutions, i.e., fully engaged in pro- investment of time and resources from each ducing the collective capacity of a range of stakeholder to create lasting change founded city leaders to achieve the multiple interests on ongoing communication and long-term of cities and communities, as well as univer- relationships. These efforts can generate good sities, in ways that are mutually agreeable” will in the community and support in the (Perry, Wiewel, and Menendez 2009, 4).

28 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 29 ......

r e f e r e n c e s

Adams, Carolyn. 2003. The meds and eds in Coffey, Brian, and Yonn Dierwechter. 2005. Jan, Tracy. 2009. Harvard slows work on Allston urban economic development. Journal of Urban The urban university as a vehicle for inner-city complex. Boston Globe, February 19, A1. Affairs 25 (5):571–588. renewal: The University of Washington, Tacoma. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 80–97. Kelley, Lawrence R., and Carl V. Patton. Associated Press. 2004. Cities increasingly 2005. The university as an engine for downtown challenge tax status of universities. USA Today, College and University Impact Portal. 2009. renewal in Atlanta. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, March 16. Economic impact report listing. http://www. 131–146. edu-impact.com/view/reports Axelbank, Rachel L. 2007. Community concern Kowalcky, Linda, and Gregory Perkins. grows as BC expansion continues. Jewish Advocate. College Vista. 2009. http://smccd.edu/accounts/ 2006. America’s college town. Boston, MA: Boston smccd/collegevista/ Redevelopment Authority Research Department. Benson, Lee, John L. Puckett, and Ira Harkavy. 2007. Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an The Connective Corridor. 2009. Overview. Kurtz, Larry R. 2005. Leasing for profit and age of education reform. Philadelphia, PA: Temple http://connectivecorridor.syr.edu/ control: The case of Victoria University at the University Press. University of Toronto. In Perry and Wiewel Cummings, Scott, Mark Rosentraub, Mary 2005, 222–238. Blaik, Omar. 2008. Urban anchors: Creating Domahidy, and Sarah Coffin. 2005. University places, remaking cities. Paper presented at involvement in downtown revitalization: Man- Leland, Pamela. 2006. Robbing Peter to pay University as Civic Partner Conference, February aging political and financial risks. In Perry Paul: Concerns and contradictions in payments- 14–16, 2008, Phoenix, AZ. and Wiewel 2005, 147–174. in-lieu-of-taxes (pilots) as a source of municipal revenue. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Bramwell, Allison, and David A. Wolfe. 2008. Deitrick, Sabina, and Tracy Soska. 2005. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Universities and regional economic development: University of Pittsburgh and the Oakland neigh- The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. borhood: From conflict to cooperation, or how Marcuse, Peter, and Cuz Potter. 2005. Columbia Research Policy 37:1175–1187. the 800-pound gorilla learned to sit with—and University’s heights: An ivory tower and its not on—its neighbors. In Perry and Wiewel communities. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 45–64. Brown, John, and Jacqueline Geoghegan. 2009. 2005, 25–44. Bringing the campus to the community: An ex- Mayfield, Loomis. 2001. Town and gown in amination of the Clark University park partner- Fainstein, Susan S. 1994. The city builders: America: Some historical and institutional issues ship after ten years. In The Impact of Large Land- Property, politics, and planning in London and New York. of the engaged university. Education for Health 14 owners on Land Markets, ed. Raphael W. Bostic. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. (2):231–240. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Florida, Richard. 2005. The flight of the creative National Center for Education Statistics. 2009. class: The new global competition for talent. London: www.nces.ed.gov Calder, Allegra, Gabriel Grant, and Holly Hart Harper Collins. Muson. 2005. No such thing as vacant land: National Science Foundation. 2008. Science and Northeastern University and Davenport Com- Glaeser, Edward. 2000. The new economies of engineering indicators. Washington DC: National mons. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 253–267. urban and regional growth. In The Oxford Hand- Science Board. book of Economic Geography, eds. G. L. Clark, M. S. Chan, Sewell. 2007. When the gown devours the Gertler, and M. P. Feldman. Oxford: Oxford Perry, David C. 2008. Changing the research town. The New York Times, November 16. University Press. paradigm: From applied to engaged. Paper presented at University as Civic Partner Con- Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber. 2009. Larg- Harasta, Joe. 2008. Town-gown relations: ference, February 14–16, 2008, Phoenix, AZ. est employers. http://www.cincinnatichamber.com/ University and neighborhood leaders’ perceptions liv_b.aspx?menu_id=180&id=7570 of college and community relations. Ph.D. Thesis. ————, and Wim Wiewel. 2005. The university Wilmington University, New Castle, DE, July. as urban developer. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe City of Milwaukee. 2003. A strategy and vision for the and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. UWM neighborhood. Milwaukee: Department of Harkavy, Ira, and Harmon Zuckerman. 1999. City Development. Eds and meds: Cities’ hidden assets. Washington, DC: ————, Wim Wiewel, and Carrie Menendez. The Brookings Institution. 2009. The city, communities, and universities: City of San Jose. South campus district plan 2009. 360 degrees of planning and development. Work- http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/district_plan/ Herrick, Thaddeus. 2007. Campuses, companies ing paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of cozy up. The Wall Street Journal, July 11. Land Policy. Clark, Terry N., ed. 2003. Urban amenities: Lakes, opera, and juice bars—do they drive ICIC (Initiative for a Competitive Inner City) and Pyatt, Rudolph A. 1998. In LeDroit Park, development? In The city as an entertainment machine. CEOs for Cities. 2002. Leveraging colleges and univer- Howard is teaching by example. The Washington New York, NY: JAI Press/Elsevier. sities for urban economic revitalization: An action agenda. Post, December 28. Chicago, IL: CEOs for Cities.

30 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 31 ......

Smith College. 2009. Ford Hall: Construction Colleges and Universities Information. www.smith.edu/fordhall/construction/ background.php Cited in this Report Boston College, Newton and Boston, Massachusetts Strom, Elizabeth. 2005. The political strategies behind university-based development. In Perry Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts and Wiewel 2005, 116–130. College of San Mateo, California Taylor, Jill S. 2007. Mechanisms for cities to manage: Columbia University, New York, New York Institutionally led real estate development. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Land Policy. Georgia State University, Atlanta Tobin, Thomas. 1989. Slowed USF plans keeping Harvard University, Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts land idle. St. Petersburg Times, January 22:1. Howard University, Washington, DC UC San Diego. 2008. A study of the economic impact and benefits of UC San Diego. http:// Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/EconomicImpact/pdf/ Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. American Commu- Portland State University, Oregon nity Survey Population Estimates for 2007. www.census.gov/acs/www/ Pratt Institute, New York, New York

Varga, A. 2000. Local academic knowledge trans- San Jose State University, California fers and the concentration of economic activity. Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts Journal of Regional Science 40 (2):289–309. Syracuse University, New York Vidal, Avis, Nancy Nye, Christopher Walker, Carlos Manjarrez, Clare Romanik. 2002. Lessons University of California, Berkeley from the community outreach partnership center University of California, San Diego program. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of University of Cincinnati, Ohio Policy Development and Research. University of Illinois at Chicago Webber, Henry S. 2005. The University of University of Maryland, College Park and Baltimore Chicago and its neighbors: A case study in community development. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, University of Missouri–St. Louis 65–79. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania University of South Florida St. Petersburg University of Washington, Tacoma University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Victoria University at the University of Toronto, Canada Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts

30 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Y e s i m S u n g u - E r y i l m a z ● Town-Gown collaborat i o n 31 ......

Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to Rosalind Greenstein, former senior fellow and chair of the Department of Economic and Community Development, whose guidance and suggestions helped me with this report and during my tenure at the Institute. In recognition of the importance of large-scale educational institutions in urban settings, she had started the City, Land, and the University program in 2001 with Wim Wiewel, now president of Port- land State University, and David C. Perry, now director of the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago. This multiyear collaborative project supported several workshops and conferences, 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 of other staff at the Lincoln Institute. Research assistant Courtney Knapp took on the task of collecting data and reviewing many newspapers articles for 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 benefited immeasurably from the close and critical reading of earlier drafts by Gregory K. Ingram, Marcia Fernald, Ann LeRoyer, David C. Perry, and Wim Wiewel.

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

32 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Ordering Information www.lincolninst.edu To download a free copy of this report or to order copies of the printed report, visit Lincoln Institute is a private operating foundation whose mission is www.lincolninst.edu and search by author or title. For additional information on discounted to improve the quality of public debate and decisions in the areas prices for bookstores, multiple-copy orders, of land policy and land-related taxation in the United States and and shipping and handling costs, send your inquiry to [email protected]. around the world. The Institute’s goals are to integrate theory and

practice to better shape land policy and to provide a nonpartisan forum for discussion of the multidisciplinary forces that influence Production Credits public policy. The Institute seeks to inform decision making through P roject M anager Ann LeRoyer education, research, demonstration projects, and the dissemination P roject E ditor of information through publications, our Web site, and other media. Marcia Fernald Lincoln Institute programs bring together scholars, practitioners, D esign & P roduction : DG Communications/NonprofitDesign.com public officials, policy advisers, and involved citizens in a collegial P rinting : learning environment. Recycled Paper Printing, Boston Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks.

Photographs

F ront C over Top left: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, iStockphoto.com Top right: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Robyn Salbo Bottom left: Portland State University, Oregon, Steve Dipaola/Portland State University Bottom right: Notre Dame University, South Bend, Indiana, iStockphoto.com

TEXT 2, 19: Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz 4, 7, 17, 18, 20, 27, 32: iStockphoto.com 9: University of Missouri–St Louis 11: Maybelle Taylor Bennett, Director/Howard University Community Association 12: Stephen Stohs 14: Reprinted with permission of the Daily Hampshire Gazette. All rights reserved. 21: Joseph Gamble/University of South Florida 22, 26: Robyn Salbo 23: Edis Jurcys/Portland State University 24: Mesirow Stein Real Estate Inc. 28: Syracuse University Photo & Imaging

Back cover Left: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Photos.com Middle: Syracuse University, New York, Syracuse University Photo & Imaging Right: California State University, Northridge, iStockphoto.com 113 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138-3400 USA

Phone: 617-661-3016 or 800-526-3873 Fax: 617-661-7235 or 800-526-3944 Web: www.lincolninst.edu Email: [email protected]

32 policy focus repor t ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Town-Gown Collaboration in Land Use and Development

Colleges and universities decide on a variety of land use and development projects. New or changing land use decisions tend to be much more complex and contain the seeds of future conflicts if the concerns of all stakeholders are not addressed and resolved satisfactorily. The common requirement for solving potential town–gown conflicts is to balance academic and community interests and goals through a collaborative process.

ISBN 978-1-55844-195-8

ISBN 978-1-55844-195-8 Policy Focus Report/Code PF022