Case Studies in University Led Neighborhood Revitalization

By Ian Colgan | Redevelopment & Revitalization | Jun 30th

The growth of American metropolitan areas since the Second World War has resulted in a distinct trend related to urban institutions of higher education. As population and wealth left the central city, some College and Universities – many of which were once located on the periphery of their communities – found themselves surrounded by urban neighborhoods that went through periods of significant decline and disinvestment.

Until the late 20^th Century, a common practice for these institutions was to turn their back on what was going on around them.  This often created a schism between the university and the surrounding neighborhood, straining “town-gown” relations. However, the past two decades have seen a major shift in thinking, and now hundreds of universities have become more open to their environs as they see their future success linked to their location. Several models of university community engagement are emerging. They range from multi-billion dollar investments in real estate, land and facilities to community based programs that link college education with community participation and education.

Below are examples from around the country that have produced tangible results in terms of university-led neighborhood revitalization. This is meant to go beyond programs and strategies that simply focus on improving town-gown relations to examine initiatives that have leveraged investment and physical development.

Model #1:  Campus Expansion

Johns Hopkins University

Medical Campus / Life Sciences Expansion

Johns Hopkins University has several campuses throughout Baltimore, Maryland.  Its primary medical campus – home to its well-known hospital and medical school – is located in the midst of a low-income area east of Downtown. 10 Years ago, the University embarked upon an initiative designed to open up land for an expansion of its medical campus – specifically to expand its Life Sciences component, which has become a popular area of academic investment across the country. The problem was that the medical campus was landlocked. To solve this problem, the University formed East Baltimore Development, Inc., a non-profit partnership with the City and private developers. This partnership was designed to achieve triple bottom line results for its partners; 1) the ability for the medical campus / hospital to expand; 2) a chance to improve a crime ridden and blighted neighborhood for the City; and 3) the creation of private investment opportunities in what was at the time a very active real estate market.

The hospital, through EBDI and the City, proceeded to acquire 88 acres of land in East Baltimore. The demolition of multiple blocks of townhomes, as well as several dated and mostly vacant public housing complexes began several years ago.  Much of the land was acquired through the practice of eminent domain. As of late 2008, 153 homeowners had been given a $150,000 buy-out, and 243 renters were given $50,000. The total cost of the project is estimated to be over $1.2 billion.

Needless to say, the purchase and redevelopment of an entire low-income (and mostly minority) neighborhood has been controversial. On one hand, the neighborhood was one of the worst in East Baltimore, with high vacancies and drug problems, and the hospital’s expansion addresses much of these problems, helping to create a city-wide economic opportunity, as well as an improved tax base. On the other hand, the use of eminent domain is highly controversial, many have argued that the needs of a private entity should not come before a neighborhood, and some question whether the EBDI offered enough compensation for the relocation of residents.

This case study represents one end of the spectrum in terms of how universities deal with expansion in previously developed neighborhoods. It also provides a good indication as to the cost and effort required to expand university facilities of any reasonable scale in developed areas. Additionally, it shows the potential conflict between neighborhood residents and a private entity contemplating expansion via land purchase.

Source: New York Times, Baltimore Business Journal

Other Examples Include:  Trinity College (Connecticut), Columbia University (New York City), Jefferson University (Philadelphia)

Model #2:  Neighborhood Housing Improvements

Howard University

LeDroit Park Neighborhood Revitalization

Howard University, a historically black school in the District of Columbia, is located in the neighborhood of LeDroit Park. Once a suburb of Washington, the neighborhood was originally designed by a 19^th Century Howard University President to be an exclusive neighborhood for professionals and merchants. At the time of its development, the neighborhood was separated from the University and an adjacent minority neighborhood via a wood and iron fence.

Eventually the neighborhood became more integrated, the fence was removed, and the University expanded into the area. After World War II, a demographic shift began a period of decline for LeDroit Park.  By the 1980s, it was one of the District’s poorest neighborhoods. Despite the University’s proximity, for years the University turned its back on its environs, shunning efforts of local advocacy and community development groups to gain more University integration. It was not until the 1990s that Howard decided to shift from a “land banking” policy involving the purchase and holding of blighted structures / land for future University use to one that more actively improved the neighborhood.

Entering into a partnership with Fannie Mae, Howard rehabbed 28 homes and developed 17 new homes in LeDroit Park which it subsequently sold, many to University and municipal employees. This first phase of a greater plan to improve LeDroit Park has been called the most significant redevelopment project in the District since the revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue in the 1970s.

Other initiatives of note include the conversion of a liquor store into a security office, plans for the extension of an arts district adjacent to a Metro Station and anchored by a University office building that includes a jazz museum, and renovation of the Howard Theater. The University has also signaled its interest in revitalizing the Georgia Avenue commercial corridor, and purchased a vacant Wonder Bread factory which now houses the University’s data center, as well as retail shops. The University’s partners are also providing tools for revitalization. Fannie Mae’s role, in conjunction with other banks, is to provide low-interest mortgages for homebuyers in the neighborhood, while BellAtlantic has agreed to wire the neighborhood with state-of-the-art communications and internet access.

The LeDroit Park Initiative is a notable public-private partnership model for universities seeking to be a catalyst for its environs.  This is especially true of minority neighborhoods. LeDroit Park is a collection of black neighborhoods north of Washington’s city center with a strong black cultural history. The University, combined with area landmarks worked in conjunction to provide an identity for the area, which worked to support economic development efforts that did not reach similar neighborhoods such as Anacostia or Lincoln Park until much more recently. However, Howard University’s initiative deserves some context. The rapid job growth in the metropolitan DC area, combined with the historic nature of the LeDroit Park neighborhood and its accessibility to Downtown Washington provided the ability to leverage significant amounts of private development and investment once the initial “catalyst” investment was made. The ability of LeDroit Park to leverage its cultural history, along with the high number of famous African-Americans who lived there, was extremely important and is difficult to replicate.

Source: Howard University, Washington Post

Model  #3:  Community / Civic Education

Daemon College

Community Engagement / Integration With Curriculum

Located in Buffalo, New York, small Daemon College has created a program that integrates its academic curriculum with a community development, civic empowerment, and education program in some of the city’s most distressed neighborhoods. The College’s Center for Sustainable Communities and Civic Engagement currently runs three programs – or “partnerships” within the City of Buffalo. The Center is run by professional staff and a 23 member Advisory Board which includes members of the community and representatives from local businesses and organizations, such as LISC, Fannie Mae, Greater Buffalo Savings Bank, and local community development corporations.

The College’s three partnerships; Seneca-Babcock, West Side and Fruit Belt, are geared around the service of Daemon College students in engaging community youths through education, after-school programs and a reading campus. The largest scale initiative is the Fruit Belt Partnership, which raised money through HUD and private donors to help foster a continued education partnership between the College and local entities, as well as collaborate with a national non-profit that develops playgrounds for inner-city neighborhoods.

Despite a limited amount of tangible physical development, the Daemon College program is a successful model for the integration of academic curriculum and community service. Though the CSCCE focuses upon education, the linkages between student volunteers and civic improvement could be theoretically expanded – given the right curriculum components. Many other universities are engaged in similar activities such as the CSCCE, but few do so on an on-going, annual basis. The goodwill that such a program could generate between a university (particularly a private one that is expanding) and adjacent neighborhoods can be extremely high. That goodwill could be leveraged to gain local support for the physical expansion of that institution.

Source: Daemon College

Model #4:  Primary Education Partnership

Clark University

University Park Campus School

Clark University is a private university located in the heart of Worchester, Massachusetts, an industrial community that has struggled in recent years. The neighborhoods that surround Clark are some of the poorest in the City. Given these circumstances, University officials could not help but witness the contrast between their own competitive and high cost institution with neighborhoods full of residents that barely had a high school education, let alone a college education.

In 1997, the University Park Campus School was founded through a partnership between Clark University, local community development corporations, and Worchester Public Schools. The School, which offers grades 7-12, is the focal point of a University strategy to revive inner-city Worchester.  The school offers a college preparatory curriculum geared towards students from the surrounding neighborhoods. Tuition is free, and admission is based on a lottery. It is oriented around high standards and intensive personal instruction. The ultimate goal of the School is to place as many students in college as possible.

For its part, Clark University allows University Park students to take college classes on its campus, and utilize campus facilities such as the library, playing fields, and gyms. It also offers students free tuition if they are accepted. It runs a housing improvement program for faculty and staff of the University and School, with $5,000 interest-free loans to purchase homes, reduced by $1,000 for every year they live there, plus a 12 percent salary bonus annually for the first seven years they live near the campus, with a max of $4,000. More than 30 faculty and staff have signed up. Clark has also worked with local community development groups to attract more than $120 million in public and private funding to revitalize the neighborhood.

The results of the University / public partnership are impressive. Over 95% of the students that attend University Park go on to college, some to prestigious Ivy League schools or similar institutions. Nearly 100% pass the Massachusetts Graduation Exam. By 2000, only 12 had accepted placement at Clark, meaning many had the opportunity to pick where they would attend college.

The University Park model is praised by many, though others claim that while it is a huge success, it is a difficult model to replicate. The institute that represents the partnership – the University Park Campus School for Student Success – runs training programs to help replicate its model in other areas of the country. The program is one of the few case studies / examples found that tackles neighborhood improvement primarily through education, which is one of the major limiting factors to inner-city revitalization.

Source: Clark University, Boston Globe

Model #5:  Joint Venture Development

Ohio State University

Gateway Center / High Street

In the 1990s, Ohio State University made a move to alter the decline of its Columbus, Ohio environs. Increased crime and blight led the University to establish a community development corporation in 1995 – Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment (Campus Partners). The focus of Campus Partners was to develop and implement a comprehensive development plan for the neighborhoods around High Street. The plan centered around four major themes; 1) Improving rental housing and quality of life; 2) increasing home ownership; 3) revitalizing the retail market; and 4) encouraging university-community involvement.

The catalyst for the initiative was the 250,000 square foot Gateway Center, a mixed-use shopping center on High Street. Other improvements have included the acquisition of land and property along High Street and adjacent neighborhoods, the development of a parking garage, and tax-credit funded housing improvements. $20 million was utilized directly from the University’s endowment for land acquisition, with assistance from the City. A mixture of funds and methods from local and state sources were used. This included eminent domain to purchase many underutilized and delinquent properties along High Street.

Johns Hopkins University

Charles Commons / Charles Village

The primary campus of Johns Hopkins University (separate from the medical campus discussed previously) is located in northern Baltimore, adjacent to the Charles Village neighborhood. In order to spark revitalization in the Charles Village area, a prime residential location for many of its students, Hopkins looked to locate uses on University land within the neighborhood that could spark investment. Originally the goal was to locate the campus bookstore in the neighborhood, but this grew into a much larger project after the University listened to students about the need for retail and better housing. In the late 1990s, Hopkins selected a Joint Venture Group – the Collegetown Development Alliance – to develop retail, conference space and student housing on University-owned land. The Alliance consisted of a national student housing developer, a retail / marketing analyst, and a local construction company.

The result is the Charles Commons Building, which houses a Barnes & Noble bookstore, over 600 student beds, dining areas and conference facilities. Today Charles Village has seen a considerable amount of private investment, including housing rehabilitation. It is a much safer neighborhood and more closely resembles the top middle class areas of the City rather than the more challenged areas to its south. Much of this can be attributed to the University’s move across Charles Street into the Village, though the expansion of the Union Memorial Hospital – not affiliated with the University – deserves some credit as well.

Source: Emerging Trends in University and College Community Partnerships, Smart Growth Strategies for Colleges and Universities

Findings

#1:  Successful University-Led Neighborhood Revitalization Requires Partnerships

The common thread in all of the case studies discussed in this document, as well as those left out, is that some sort of partnership was necessary to implement neighborhood revitalization goals. None of these “success stories” were accomplished solely via the institution in question. There is not necessarily a model for partnership, but one method that appears often is that of a university sponsored community development corporation or neighborhood alliance that then takes it upon themselves to organize relationships with public and private sector entities, as well as the general public. It is important to differentiate these organizations from the universities themselves – they are professionally staffed, and require skill sets that are often quite different from those that exist within universities. Even the largest universities that have dedicated campus planning and facility staff rarely can compensate for the skills needed to run a CDC or neighborhood alliance, which typically involves the capacity to engage the public and gain consensus on issues, identify and procure funding for planning and development initiatives, and negotiate with private developers.

#2:  There are Multiple Options for the Acquisition of Land Related to Neighborhood / Housing Improvements

For those universities that led physical development initiatives (i.e. not Clark University or Daemon College), land was acquired through a number of different methods to accomplish university, city and partnership goals. Understanding which “partner” is responsible or capable of land acquisition is important because that is a necessary tool for virtually any development oriented project, from campus owned and operated facilities to housing initiatives and joint venture developments.

Howard and Johns Hopkins Universities used land they already owned to spur neighborhood improvements. On the other hand, local municipalities assisted Ohio State University and Johns Hopkins (medical campus) in the acquisition of land. Another model used in these case studies and others is land acquisition via a university sponsored CDC or neighborhood alliance, which typically utilize funding from the university, but are themselves the agent for land acquisition and/or development.

#3: Some Implementation Tools Used in University-Led Initiatives May Not be Replicable

Both the City of Baltimore and the City of Columbus utilized eminent domain to acquire land for university led redevelopment initiatives. This practice, which involves the forced sale of private property to a municipality that has determined that the property is either delinquent or required for economic development purposes, is not universally used or popular. This is especially true in the wake of the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court case. The case upheld the constitutionality of the eminent domain practice for economic development purposes, but it also brought the practice back into the public spotlight, resulting in a wave of backlash against the practice across the country. It should be noted that the bulk of eminent domain use in the two above mentioned cities occurred prior to the Supreme Court decision. Post-Kelo, eminent domain – which has always been a last-resort method of land acquisition – has become virtually taboo in many states, limiting its potential application.

#4:  Most Success Stories Come from Universities and Colleges That Have Significant Financial Resources

Virtually all of the success stories related to university-led neighborhood revitalization include institutions with notable financial capacity. The exception in this document is Daemon College, though that is the one case study that does not reflect any physical development or improvements as a tangible outcome. Through case study research, the smallest institution found that assisted in the funding of a major or minor development initiative was Trinity College, located in Hartford, Connecticut.  Though Trinity has only 2,000 students, it commands an endowment of more than $350 million. The next smallest – Clark University (3,000 students), also commands an endowment of more than $300 million. This correlation begs a question as to whether small institutions have the financial capacity to replicate the initiatives discussed in this document, even at a smaller scale.

Tags: acquisition, education, Neighborhood Redevelopment, public-private partnership