Post on 14-Apr-2018
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
1/36
Town-Gown Collaborationin Land Use and Development
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z
Policy Focus Report Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
2/36
TownGown Collaborationin Land Use and DevelopmentYesim Sungu-Eryilmaz
Plicy Fcus Reprt SeriesThe policy ocus report series is published by the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy to address
timely public policy issues relating to land use, land markets, and property taxation. Each report
is designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by combining research ndings,
case studies, and contributions rom scholars in a variety o academic disciplines, and rom
proessional practitioners, local ocials, and citizens in diverse communities.
Abut this Reprt
Universities have entered into a new era o community engagement, but towngown conficts
still existespecially when institutions seek to expand at the campus edge. Building on the
Lincoln Institutes City, Land, and the University program, started in 2001, this policy ocus
report describes the evolving roles o colleges and universities in urban development; examines
sources o tensions over land use and development decisions; and presents a variety o
approaches that do and do not work in managing these conficts. The report also oers several
approaches to consider in designing successul collaborations among the university, the city,
and the neighborhood.
Abut the Authr
Yesim Sungu-Eryilma was a research associate at the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy rom
2004 to 2009. Her work ocuses on strategies and collaborations that balance economic and
community development goals in urban areas, such as community land trusts and the role o
universities in planning and development. She earned her Masters degree in city and regional
planning rom the University o Pennsylvania and her Ph.D. in public and international aairs
rom the University o Pittsburgh. Contact: yesimsungu@gmail.com
Copyright 2009 by the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.
All rights reserved.
113 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-3400, USA
www.lincolninst.edu
ISBN 978-1-55844-195-8
Policy Focus Report/Code PF022
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
3/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contents
2 Eecutie Summary
4 Chapter 1: The City, Land, and the Uniersity
7 Chapter 2: Eling TwnGwn Relatins in Urban Deelpment
Economic Development
Community Development
12 Chapter 3: Uniersity Mtiatins r Land Use and Deelpment Prects
Student Housing and Recreational Needs
Research Facilities and Related Needs
Revitalization o Adjacent Neighborhoods and Downtowns
Land Banking or Future Use and Income
17 Chapter 4: City and Neighbrhd Interests in Uniersity Land Deelpment
Social Equity
Spillover Eects
Involvement in the Planning Process
Loss o Property Tax Revenue
22 Chapter 5: Psitie Practices r TwnGwn Relatins
Incorporating Social and Economic Programs
Managing Spillover Eects Through PlanningIntegrating University Buildings Through Design
Formalizing Stakeholder Participation and Leadership
Osetting Tax-exempt Status
Summary
28 Chapter 6: Ming Tward Successul TwnGwn Cllabratins
Balancing University and Community Interests
Working Together Toward Common Goals
Creating Lasting Change
30 Reerences
32 Acnwledgments
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
4/36
2 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Executive Summary
Colleges and universities are among
the largest landowners and devel-
opers in urban areas. To ulll
their mission, these institutions
oten become involved in land development
at the campus edge, whether to construct
new dormitories and research acilities or to
oset neighborhood decline. Their activities
usually have an immediate impact on the
neighborhood and even on the entire city.
When the use o urban land or univer-
sity purposes competes with its use or local
priorities, conficts inevitably arise. A variety
o stakeholdersranging rom local govern-
ments to nearby residentsmay mobilize
to counter university land development or
reasons related to social and economic con-
cerns, quality o lie in the neighborhood,
the planning and design process, and loss
o property tax revenue.
This policy ocus report lays out the
competing interests aected by university
land use and development activities, and
highlights some approaches that have and
have not worked in solving conficts between
institutions and their communities. The
better approaches, o course, have the most
potential or success when they balance
academic and community needs through a
participatory and inclusive planning process.
Institutions o higher education have
entered a new era o community engage-
Bstn
Uniersity
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
5/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ment. While once unctioning mainly as
enclaves o intellectual pursuit, colleges and
universities today play a much broader role
in the economic, social, and physical devel-opment o their host cities and neighbor-
hoods. They have become key institutions,
oten termed anchor institutions, in their
communities through their economic impacts
on employment, spending, and work-orce
development, as well as through their ability
to attract new businesses and highly skilled
individuals and to revitalize adjacent
neighborhoods.
This evolving situation presents new chal-
lenges and opportunities or towngown part-
nerships. Because most o these institutions
have substantial xed assets and are not
likely to relocate, the need or eective collab-
oration is increasing. At the same time these
institutions must achieve their missions in ahighly competitive environment and in a
period o extreme scal pressure.
Colleges and universities must seek to
be ully vested urban anchor institutions,
not only by advancing the goals o academia,
but also by coordinating their place-based
strategies with the interests o the city and
the community. When land use and devel-
opment conficts are avoided or resolved
amicably, both universities and communities
can reap the benets o the resources that
each has to oer.
Uniersity Land Use and Deelpment: What wrs? What des nt?
City and Cmmunity
Cncerns What Wrs? What Des Nt?
Scial Euity Eorts to mitigate displacement and
gentrication, and to generate job opportu-
nities or local residents and businesses.
Ignoring the neighborhoods social and
economic context and issues that might
aect local residents and businesses.
Spiller Eects Regulatory and nonregulatory planning
mechanisms that balance the needs o
the academic and local communities.
Lack o planning by colleges
and universities.
Design Planning and developing the campus
in ways that blend the academic
and local communities.
Development that is out o character
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Planning Prcess A joint planning process that involves the
university, the community, and the city.
Finalizing university land use and
development plans internally.
Leadership Close involvement o the university
president or other top-level leaders in
developing and sustaining the commitment
to community engagement.
No ormal mechanism or senior ocials
to work with the city and community,
except on an ad hoc basis.
Ta-eempt Status Recognition o the uneven distribution
o tax burdens throughout the state.
Long-running disputes and court cases
between the universities and cities over
development projects and tax-exempt status.
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
6/36
4 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C h a p t e r 1
The City, Land, and the University
areas compared to the share o urban
population. Even in the very rural states
throughout the Midwest and South, colleges
and universities are more highly urbanized
than the overall population. Among the
six states where these institutions are less
urbanized than the state population, the
population shares in ve o these states
(Caliornia, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland,
and New Jersey) exceed the U.S. average
o 79 percent.
Until airly recently, most urban colleges
and universities remained enclaves o intel-
lectual pursuit that seldom collaborated with
surrounding neighborhoods and host cities
to address common problems. This situa-
tion was the result o distinct and exclusive
Institutions o higher education vary
greatly, rom community colleges, to
small private and public liberal arts
colleges, to large private and public
research universities. The United States has
a long history o small liberal arts colleges
and large land grant universities located in
rural settings. Today, however, an average
o 82 percent o all degree-granting public
and private institutions are located in urban
areas, and in 28 o the 50 states, the percen-
tage is greater than the national average.
Moreover, institutions o higher education
in most states are more urbanized than their
populations. Figure 1 shows the share o
degree-granting public and private two-year
and our-year institutions located in urban
Photo of University of Hawaii
iStock
Uniersity Hawaii
Uniersity
Hawaii,
Hnlulu
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
7/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
interests, missions, and practices. But over
the last 20 years, towngown relationships
have undergone a sea change that refects a
greater university interest in working activelywith local governments, businesses, and
community-based organizations (CBOs).
New language included in university mis-
sion statements provides evidence o this shit,
such as engagement, partnership, and
reciprocity (Perry 2008). Portland State
University (or excellence in. . . community
engagement), Northeastern University
(commitment to . . . urban engagement),
and the University o Maryland (engage
the University more ully in. . . collaborative
partnership) are just a ew o the institutions
that explicitly make strong community
relations part o their missions.
figure 1
In Mst States, Uniersities Are Mre Urbanied Than the Ppulatin, 2007
Notes: The geographic classication is constructed rom urban-centric rather than metro-centric criteria, representing urbanicity (city/suburb/rural) by population size
o the institutions location. This urban-centric locale code was assigned through a methodology developed by the U.S. Census Bureaus Population Division in 2005.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007); National Center or Education Statistics Web site.
This new practice comes in response to
external pressures, including criticism that
universities receive public support but ignore
the interests and concerns o their hostcommunities (Mayeld 2001). This shit also
refects internal changes in academia,
especially those based on enlightened sel-
interest (Benson, Puckett, and Harkavy
2007). By their nature, colleges and univer-
sities are dynamic and constantly challenged
by changes in political economy, unding,
demographics, communities, and educa-
tional theory and practice. This dynamism
has led institutions to expand their roles in
society and to improve their relations with
their neighbors and their cities as a whole.
Despite a new period o collaboration
among higher education, local government,
AK
HI
1.40
Key: Ratio of share of
urban universities to
share of urban population
ME
NH
VT
MA
CTRI
NY
PA
NJ
DE
MDWVVA
NC
SC
GA
FL
ALMS
TN
KY
OH
MI
WI
INIL
AR
MO
IA
MN
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
NM
CO
WY
MT
ID
WA
OR
NV
UT
CA
AZ
LA
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
8/36
6 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
businesses, and community organizations,
towngown conficts still exist. The riction
is perhaps most apparent in land use and
development processes at the edge o cam-puses. Indeed, competition or the use o
urban land between university activities and
neighborhood or citywide purposes has led
to requent conficts over the last 20 years,
and may be increasing in some places
(gure 2).
The competing interests o the university,
the neighborhood, and the city have three
implications. First, even in the era o the
engaged university, land use and develop-
ment processes at the campus edge will
repeatedly put towngown relations to thetest. Second, nearly all real estate activities
o universities and colleges are multiaceted
and have multiple stakeholders, including
residents, businesses, and local governments.
Third, land uses at the campus edge have
become a crucial element in both the phy-
sical and socioeconomic character o cities
and neighborhoods.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
News
paperArticles
figure 2
Twn-Gwn Cnficts er Urban Land Use Persist
Note: Analysis is based on a search o LexisNexis or the number o all U.S. newspaper articles describing towngown land use
and development conficts rom 1990 to 2008. Towngown Conficts Index (1990=100).
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
9/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C h a p t e r 2
Evolving Town-Gown Relationsin Urban Development
Globalization has presented cities
with many new and persistent
challenges, especially during the
current economic slowdown.
Almost all major metropolitan areas in the
United States have been aected by these
changes that have either helped them attract
new businesses and residents or let them
suering rom disinvestment and popula-
tion loss.
These economic and social changes in
cities and neighborhoods have helped to
reshape towngown relationships. In both
advancing and declining cities, local govern-
ments have recognized the growing impor-
tance o colleges and universities as anchor
institutions in economic and community
development. This represents a shit in the
governance paradigm, since governments
alone cannot address the complexity o
todays urban problems. This new paradigm
encourages the creation o partnerships
among the public, private, and nonprot
sectors to harness the collective capacity
o all players to solve these issues.
Colleges and universities thus have a key
role to play with state and local governments
and nonprots in areas as diverse as educa-
Stata Center,
Massachusetts
Institute
Technlgy,
Cambridge
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
10/36
8 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
institutions o higher education provide
technical support and specialized expertise
to rms (Bramwell and Wole 2008). Changes
in academic research and development und-ing patterns suggest how these university
private sector partnerships have evolved
over the last 35 years (gure 3). While the
ederal government continues to provide
more than 60 percent o unds or academic
research and development, industry sources
contributed 5 percent ($2.1 billion), and
state and local government unding provided
6 percent ($2.6 billion) o the total in 2006.
Colleges and universities can enhance the
local technological base i rms locate nearby
and coordinate their research eorts with
those institutions (Varga 2000). In recent
years, technoparks or joint university-
industry research centers or ongoing, rm-
based research and development have ex-
panded dramatically. A growing number o
universities have become directly involved
in the incubation o newly established
scientic and technical companies.
For example, Worcester Polytechnic
Institute (WPI) in Massachusetts, joined the
Worcester Business Development Corpora-
tion in developing Gateway Park, a 12-acre
figure 3
Industry and Gernments Cntribute Billins t Academic R&D
tion and skills training, technology, indus-
trial perormance, public health, and social
and cultural development (Adams 2003;
ICIC and CEOs or Cities 2002).
EC o N o M IC D Ev EL o PM EN T
The importance o universities to their
local economies has long been recognized.
Among their many economic impacts, the
most important ones are enhancing the
industry and technology base, employing
large numbers o people, and generating
revenue or local governments through
university expenditures on salaries, goods,
and services.
Enhancing the Industry
and Technology Base
In the evolving knowledge economy, the
contribution o the creative class is oten
seen as strategic and valuable or local econ-
omic development (Florida 2005; Glaeser
2000). It is clear that institutions o higher
education can play an important role in
growing, attracting, and retaining knowl-
edge workers (Clark 2003).
Beyond preparing and attracting a
qualied workorce to the local economy,
All othersources
Academic
institutionsIndustry
State/localgovernment
Federalgovernment
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2000Constant$m
illions
Notes: Institutional unds
encompass two categories:
institutionally nanced and
organized research expendi-tures; and unreimbursed
indirect costs and related
sponsored research. This
category does not include
departmental research, and
thus excludes unds (notably
or aculty salaries) in cases
where research activities are
not budgeted separately.
Source: National Science
Foundation (2008).
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
11/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mixed-use development or lie sciences and
biotech companies and the people who work
or them. The project includes ve buildings
with 500,000 square eet o fexible lab space,
plus 241,000 square eet o market-rate lot
condominiums, restaurants, and business
services, and a plan or graduate student
housing on one o the sites.
While many universities support incuba-
tors or newly established technical and scien-
tic ventures, some also provide space or
large, more mature companies on their cam-
puses. For example, Express Scripts, Inc., a
major pharmacy benets management
company with almost $18 billion in annual
sales, located its headquarters at University
Place/NorthPark, on the campus o the
University o MissouriSt. Louis (UMSL).
The companys criteria or selecting the
UMSL site included the ability to expand
and the opportunity to collaborate with a
university in developing inormation tech-
nology projects (Herrick 2007).
Generating Employment
and Spending
Colleges and universities oten rank among
the largest employers in metropolitan areas.
In 1997, these institutions employed more
than 2.8 million workers, or more than 2 per-
cent o the total U.S. workorce. Approxi-
mately two-thirds are administrative and
support sta, and the remaining third are
aculty (ICIC and CEOs or Cities 2002). In
some local labor markets, such as Cincinnati,
academic institutions surpassed other cor-
porations as the leading employer (table 1).
A 1999 survey o the top employers in
the nations 20 largest cities ound that edu-
cational and medical institutions accounted
or more than 50 percent o the jobs gene-
rated in our o those cities (Washington, DC,
Philadelphia, San Diego, and Baltimore).
Moreover, these institutions were also the
top employers in every one o the 20 cities,
despite dierences in the age o the city,
its geographic region, population, and other
Epress Scripts at
the Uniersity
MissuriSt. Luis
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
12/36
10 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
socioeconomic characteristics (Harkavy
and Zuckerman 1999).
Universities also generate desirable local
economic impacts because they purchase
large amounts o goods and services in the
local marketplace, and because most o
their expenditures are distributed as salaries,
which tend to be spent locally. They also
generate large amounts o student spending.
According to the ICIC (2002, 7), urban
university spending on salaries, goods, and
services was more than nine times the
amount that the ederal government spent
on urban job creation and business devel-
opment in 1996.Although estimating the ull multiplier
eects o university spending is complex,
numerous studies have demonstrated the
signicance o this economic activity (College
and University Impact Portal 2009). These
eects, o course, vary by type o university
(public or private), orm o organization
(single campus versus statewide system), and
location (metropolitan area versus small town).
For example, a recent study by the Univer-
sity o Caliornia at San Diego showed that
its impact in the city included approximately
$2.275 billion in direct and indirect spend-
ing, 20,790 direct and indirect jobs, and
$1.228 billion in direct and indirect personal
income (UC San Diego 2008).
C o M M U N ITY D Ev EL o PM EN T
Institutions o higher education have estab-
lished more ormal partnerships with their
communities in recent years, oten providing
technical assistance such as neighborhood
planning or capacity-building or commu-
nity-based organizations. For example, Pratt
Institutes Center or Community and En-
vironmental Design has developed long-
term relationships with a variety o mature
CBOs in New York City, acilitated a collab-
orative planning process with several
community partners, and helped to develop
joint agendas driven by local stakeholders
(Vidal et al. 2002).
The Center or Community Partnerships
at the University o Pennsylvania has engaged
in eorts to integrate academic work with
the needs o the community in West Phila-
delphia (Strom 2005). Academically based
community service (ABCS) is just one o
these activities, which is rooted in problem-
oriented research and teaching. The univer-
sity oers approximately 160 ABCS courses
Table 1
The Uniersity Cincinnati LeadsEmplyers in the Greater Cincinnati Regin
Employer
Number o
Employees
University o Cincinnati 15,862
Kroger Company 15,600
Health All iance o Greater Cincinnati 14,785
The Procter & Gamble Company 12,315
Cincinnati Childrens Hospital
Medical Center9,464
TriHealth Inc 9,400
Fith Third Bank 7,645
Wal-mart Stores 7,500
GE Aviation 7,400
Mercy Health Partners 6,948
U.S. Postal Service 6,379
Hamilton County 6,304
Archdiocese o Cincinnati 6,150
Internal Revenue Service 6,000
City o Cincinnati 5,441
Cincinnati Public Schools 5,055
Macys 4,700
CBS Personnel Services 4,534
Frischs Restaurants, Inc. 4,500
Miami University 4,399
Source: Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber (2009).
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
13/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in a wide range o disciplines and schools
and in a variety o areas such as the envi-
ronment, health, education, and the arts.
Other university initiatives intended to sup-
port community development include skills
training (generally in classes or residents),
proessional services (such as visiting nurses
or legal clinics), inormation technology
(such as shared databases or training or
CBO sta), and technical assistance to small
businesses. These activities have attractedunding rom a variety o sources including
the Oce o University Partnerships at the
U.S. Department o Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
Launched in 1994, the Community Out-
reach Partnerships Centers (COPC) program
is HUDs primary vehicle or helping col-
leges and universities apply their human,
intellectual, and institutional resources to
the revitalization o distressed communities.
In its rst decade o operation, the program
granted about $45 million to more than
100 colleges and universities or such eorts
as job training and counseling to reduce
unemployment; resident-backed strategies
to spur economic growth and reduce crime;
local initiatives to combat housing discrimi-nation and homelessness; mentoring pro-
grams or neighborhood youth; and nan-
cial and technical assistance or new
businesses.
HUD-supprted
husing, Hward
Uniersity,
Washingtn, DC
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
14/36
12 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C h a p t e r 3
University Motivations forLand Use and Development Projects
Colleges and universities have
emerged as some o the largest
landowners and developers in
their cities, exerting a powerul
infuence on the built environment (Perry
and Wiewel 2005). At the end o scal year
1996, urban institutions held almost $100
billion in land and buildings (book value),
including $8 billion in purchases rom only
the prior year (ICIC and CEOs or Cities
2002). They have several motivations or
undertaking land development activities:
ensuring their capacity to meet growing
demands or student housing and other acil-
ities; ullling their educational and research
agenda; enhancing the quality and security
o their surroundings; and maintaining or
improving their reputation and standing.
S TU D EN T H o U S IN G AN D
R EC R EAT Io N AL N EED S
Colleges and universities oten invest in land
and new buildings to meet growing demands
or on-campus housing and recreational
acilities. Some o this pressure refects a
more than 50 percent increase in U.S. col-
lege enrollment between 1970 and 2005,
with continuing growth projected (gure 4).
In addition to the traditional practice o
providing housing to reshmen and some-
times all students, many colleges and univer-
sities are making the transition rom being
primarily commuter schools to more tradi-
tional residential campuses by adding student
dormitories and expanding sports acilities.
Some o the schools that have recently made
this shit are the University o South Florida
Nrth Pint High-Rise
Drmitry, Uniersity
Calirnia, San Dieg
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
15/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in Tampa; Northeastern University in Boston,
Massachusetts; the University o Nebraska
at Omaha; Wayne State University in Detroit,
Michigan; La Salle University in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; and San Jose State University
in Caliornia.
In some cases, universities lack land or
housing or recreational projects, and mustlook or alternatives on the edge o campus.
That was the case or Georgia State Univer-
sity in Atlanta when it made the transition
to a traditional campus-style university in
1993. Georgia State invested in building
both undergraduate and graduate student
housing as a way to create a viable com-
munity (Kelley and Patton 2005).
Three housing development projects
are notable. Georgia State Village includes
housing converted rom Atlantas OlympicVillage, located one-and-a-hal miles rom
the campus on the edge o downtown. The
university purchased the Olympic Village
ater the games and opened the acility in
1996 as housing or 2,000 undergraduates.
The second project, University Lots,
oers housing or graduate and internation-
al students on the edge o the campus.
The Lots opened in 2002 and contains 231
apartments or 460 residents, parking, and
street-level retail space. It was built on land
owned by a local hospital and used as a sur-
ace parking lot. The hospital agreed to a
40-year lease o the land or the expansion
o student housing.
In 2007, the university developed athird project o 2,000 units o undergradu-
ate housing north o campus on a six-acre
site bought rom a ormer auto dealership.
This $168 million project was unded by the
largest bond issue in the United States or
the purpose o housing students.
R ES EAR C H FAC IL I T IES
AN D R EL ATED N EED S
Many colleges and universities took on an
expanded role in basic scientic researchand in research and development (R&D)
ater World War II. Between 1970 and 2006,
academias share o all R&D in the United
States rose rom about 10 percent to about
14 percent (gure 5). In 2006, these institu-
tions conducted more than 30 percent o
the nations basic research and were second
only to the business sector in perorming R&D.
figure 4
Enrllment in Degree-granting Institutins Has Climbed Steadily Since 1970
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
35 and over
30 to 34
2529
2024
1419
Year
Enrollment(000s) Student Age
Note: Data include undergraduate, graduate, ull-time, and part-time students. Data or 1975, 1985, 2010, and 2015 are obtained
using linear interpolation based on existing data or the other years.
Source: National Center or Education Statistics Web site.
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
16/36
14 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One direct implication o this new
ocus is the addition o research acilities to
campus activities. Indeed, institutions that
conduct research built more space or thatwork on their campuses rom 2001 to 2005
than in any other ve-year period since at
least 1988. They added some 185 mil-
lion net assignable square eet or research
between scal 2003 and scal 2005 alone
(gure 6). In 2005, 64 percent o newly built
research space and 67 percent o construc-
tion unds were dedicated to the biological
and medical sciences (National Science
Foundation 2008).
In some cases, universities have struggled
to accommodate their growing research
needs on campus. Smith College in North-
ampton, Massachusetts, or example, be-
came the nations rst womens college to
have an engineering school in 2000. While
the new academic major quickly became
one o the most popular on campus, devel-
opment o the engineering program was
limited by the colleges aging science build-
ings and the lack o space to build new
acilities.
figure 5
Academias Shares Research Hae Increased Especially Since 2000
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
PercentofNationalActivity
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Basic Research
R&D
Source: National Science Foundadtion (2008).
Smith Cllege, Nrthamptn, Massachusetts
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
17/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To accommodate its growing role in
womens science and engineering education,
Smith had to demolish a number o college-
owned properties that had provided housing
and retail space (Smith College 2009). The
college oered tenants relocation inorma-
tion and nancial assistance, and has worked
with developers to provide aordable hous-
ing nearby.
REv ITAL IzAT IoN oF
AD j AC EN T N E IG H B o R H o o D S
AN D D o WN To WN S
For some colleges and universities, the
primary driver o land development is their
desire to enhance the surrounding neigh-
borhood and promote urban revitalization.
Unlike corporations that might choose to
leave a distressed area, most universities
are place-bound. In the past, institutions
responded to a decline in their communities
simply by putting up walls and expanding
police or security services.
More recently, however, urban colleges
and universities have tried to spur economic
and community development beyond their
borders. Indeed, universities now sponsor
activities or create entities that will have a
signicant local economic impact or serve
as the centerpiece o a downtown revival
program. These activities may include
developing retail stores and housing, en-
hancing historic landmarks or parks, im-
proving local schools, and even providing
sanitation and security services or the area.
Howard University in Washington, DC,
had been buying and holding blighted prop-
erty near its campus or decades, and in 1997
launched a massive revitalization initiative
in LeDroit Park. The initial plan was to
rehabilitate 28 vacant houses and build
new housing on 17 additional vacant lots.
Since then, Howard has expanded its
plans to include rehabilitation o a ormer
bread actory into university oces and a
community association center; renovation
o a neighborhood hospital; opening o a
neighborhood security oce; completion
o street and alley resuracing, sidewalk
bricking, tree planting, and trac-calming
measures; redevelopment o open space;
a major telecommunications inrastructure
project; and a home-ownership program or
Howard employees and local residents.
figure 6
Grwth in Academic Research Space Cntinues
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Millionsofnetsquarefeet
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Note: Data or 2000, 2002, and 2004 are obtained using linear interpolation based on existing data or the other years.
Source: National Science Foundation (2008).
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
18/36
16 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In September 2008, Howard received a
$700,000 Oce o University Partnership
grant rom HUD to begin restoration o
the historic Howard Theatre, expand localbusiness development programs, and address
accessibility issues at the community asso-
ciation center (Pyatt 1998).
In another example, the City o India-
napolis attempted to revitalize its declining
downtown throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
By directly engaging Indiana University
Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI)
as an important player in the citys larger
urban development agenda, the city tar-
geted the arts, entertainment, tourism, and
sports acilities as central strategies. IUPUI
and the associated Indiana University Medi-
cal School and hospital acquired many acres
o land to permit expansion. Local corpora-
tions, business leaders, the Lilly Foundation,
and state government strongly supported
the universitys land acquisition policies
and programs.
From 1974 through 1999, more than 50
major development projects were initiated
in the downtown area, and the universitys
investment in the Indianapolis campus
totaled more than $230 million. Several o
the projects were related to sports activities.
Seven national sports organizations moved
their governing oces to Indianapolis in
1989, and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association ollowed in 1999. Development
o the IUPUI campus has been identied asone o the principal economic development
engines or downtown Indianapolis (Cum-
mings et al. 2005).
L AN D B AN k IN G Fo R
FU TU R E U S E AN D IN C o M E
Colleges and universities acquire and
develop land to diversiy their portolios and
to control development at the campus peri-
phery. Many universities construct mixed-
use buildings or purchase commercial and
industrial properties that will be leased to
generate revenue rather than redeveloped
into traditional campus buildings.
Victoria University at the University
o Toronto has created a large portolio o
properties acquired over decades. While its
original goals were to accommodate possible
uture needs and control development at
the campus edge, the university eventually
created mixed-use developments and then
leased the properties (Kurtz 2005). Today,
the university has a stable real estate income
stream with almost hal o its endowment
based in real estate while the other hal
is invested in securities.
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
19/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C h a p t e r 4
City and Neighborhood Interestsin University Land Development
Although city ocials, neighbor-
hood residents, and local busi-
nesses generally see universities
and colleges as positive economic
and cultural assets, clashes between town
and gown are commonplace, especially in
land use and development processes. Institu-
tions o higher education oten nd them-
selves at odds with residents whose goals are
to maintain the stability and character
o their neighborhoods. Concerns about
university expansions generally relate to
social equity due to displacement o resi-
dents and businesses; spillover eects that
erode quality o lie; lack o community
involvement in the planning process;
and loss o property tax revenues.
Uniersity
Washingtn,
Tacma
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
20/36
18 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S o C IAL Eq U ITY
As colleges and universities have become
important drivers o urban revitalization
and as they expand to meet their academicmissions, their actions (and inactions) have
raised social equity concerns among neigh-
borhood residents, businesses, and nonprot
agencies. These stakeholders have argued
that educational institutions largely ignore
neighborhood social issues and problems to
such an extent that they have created a
climate o distrust. In some cases, policies
aimed at neighborhood redevelopment have
had little regard or social impacts related
to displacement o long-time residents and
businesses, and sometimes the destruction
o historic sites.
These kinds o concerns oten arise
even when other economic impacts may beconsidered positive or the city or community.
For example, as cited in the previous chapter,
Indiana UniversityPurdue University
helped to anchor urban redevelopment in
Indianapolis, but it changed the class and
racial composition o the downtown and
displaced an historic section o the citys
AricanAmerican community (Cummings
et al. 2005).
In the late 1980s, the University o
Washington announced that a new branch
would be developed in Tacoma near the
central business district in a largely aban-
doned ormer warehouse district. Although
the new campus has spurred investment in
an economically depressed area, protected
some historic buildings, and received strong
support rom some sectors, residents o a
nearby low-income neighborhood com-
plained that the university was ignoring
their needs and concerns, and was provid-
ing only upper-end jobs (Coey and
Dierwechter 2005).
Columbia Universitys development plans
led to similar conficts. The school is one o
the largest landowners in New York City,
ater the Catholic Church and the city
government (Marcuse and Potter 2005).
Its planned expansion into an area o West
Harlem/Manhattanville raised major objec-
tions rom the neighborhood, primarily
related to the potential displacement o
long-time residents and businesses through
gentrication.
S P IL L o v ER EFFEC TS
Universities and colleges primarily acquire
land and structures that support their core
mission or immediate growth demands. It is
not uncommon, however, or surrounding
communities to criticize universities or their
Clumbia Uniersity,
New Yr, New Yr
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
21/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
unresponsive development policies or lack
o a plan to mitigate negative spillover
eects. For neighborhood residents, some
o the major concerns relate to quality olie issues, such as conversion o houses
and other buildings to student occupancy;
upward pressure on rents; adaptation o
shops and acilities to student markets; and
increases in trac, noise, and parking prob-
lems (Harasta 2008).
The presence o students is typically
the greatest concern to residents, and both
on- and o-campus student housing have
locational impacts. Residents oten try to
block attempts to expand student housing
out o ear that development o new dor-
mitories will alter the character o their
neighborhoods. In addition, many students
seek private housing in nearby neighbor-
hoods that may be unprepared or unwilling
to receive them.
In Boston, or example, 42 percent o
the nearly 62,000 students attending local
colleges and universities lived o campus
in 2006. While students have moved into
all 20 Boston neighborhoods, slightly more
than hal are concentrated in just our o
them (Kowalcky and Perkins 2006).
Land banking is another issue or neigh-
borhoods and municipalities. As major land-
owners, colleges and universities hold some
parcels until they have a specic need or
development. During the current economic
downturn, declines in nancial resources
such as endownment unds or state monies
may lead institutions to slow their expansion
plans and leave land parcels vacant. I town
gown relations are strained when universities
eel fush with cash, they clearly will be
tested in times o nancial distress.
Harvard University, or example, plan-
ned to construct a $1 billion science com-
plex on part o the 250 acres that it owns in
the Allston neighborhood o Boston. Ater
a sharp drop in its endowment und in 2009,
Harvard put the project on hold. Both neigh-
borhood residents and the City o Boston
raised concerns about the delayprimarily
relating to the universitys lack o a plan
or using the parcels and or improving the
neighborhood in the meantime (Jan 2009).
INvoLvEMENT IN THE
PL AN N IN G PR o C ES S
Universities see their aculty, students,
alumni, and donors as their primary con-
stituencies, and their development priorities
are designed to meet the requirements o
these groups (Webber 2005). But because
their land and building policies are embed-
ded in the larger urban abric, colleges and
universities in act have a broader consti-
tuency that can result in complex and
confict-ridden interactions.
Residents who share space with colleges
and universities oten want to be active
participants in determining uture land uses
and development in their neighborhoods. As
Harard Uniersity,
Allstn, Massachusetts
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
22/36
20 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
one community member said when discuss-
ing Boston Colleges expansion plans in the
Brighton section o Boston, You have a
neighbor who is acting without concern orthe other neighborsthey have to discuss
with the community uses or the property
that will be benecial to both the residents
and the institution. Its not a novel ap-
proach. I guarantee that they are teaching
their students courses on social responsibil-
itywhy dont they practice it a little bit in
their own backyard? (Axelbank 2007).
When the University o Pittsburgh
decided to expand into the adjacent Oak-
land district in the 1970s, it took the ap-
proach o nalizing a master plan internally
and then sharing it only with the Oakland
Chamber o Commerce and the City o
Pittsburghs planning departmentneither
o which oered major objections. But Oak-
land residents were upset by both the plan
and their exclusion rom the planning
process (Deitrick and Soska 2005).
L o S S o F PR o PER TYTAx REvENUE
Local governments generally see colleges
and universities as positive local economic
and cultural assets. In some cases, munici-
palities make trade-os when colleges and
universities want to expand, because they
want to improve their public image, create
potentially positive impacts on the local
economy, and attract a young population
and qualied labor orce to the area.
That was the case or the University o
South Florida St. Petersburg and the City o
St. Petersburg when the campus expanded
in the 1990s. The city played an important
role through the purchase o 142 parcels at
a cost o nearly $13 million, with the
assistance o the City Council, the St.
Cathedral Learning,
Uniersity Pittsburgh,
Pennsylania
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
23/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petersburg Chamber o Commerce, the
State Legislature, and the Board o Regents.
Most o the property was transerred rom
city ownership to the university system and
was removed rom the tax rolls (Tobin 1989).
However, in an environment o rising
costs to maintain and improve public
services and inrastructure, most local gov-
ernments constantly look or new opportuni-
ties to expand their revenue sources. Although
colleges and universities contribute greatly
to urban economic and community develop-
ment, their tax-exempt status is a growing
concern or some governments, especially
when institutional expansion represents a
loss o potential property tax revenue.
Recent cutbacks in state and ederal aid
have prompted some cities to mobilize to
prevent academic institutions rom expand-
ing their campuses or to seek tax dollars
rom campus properties that generate reve-
nue or the institutions. Some o these cases
have caused long-running disputes between
the city and the university. For example, the
towngown dispute between the City o
Berkeley and the University o Caliornia
resulted in a reerendum calling or the
university to adhere to planning laws and
to pay $1.2 million in ees to the university
(Harasta 2008).
In another example, the City o Pitts-
burgh challenged the tax-exempt status o
a $22 million apartment building owned
by Duquesne University, which had bought
and converted the building into housing or
750 students as part o a multiyear plan to
increase enrollment. Although the purchase
meant more student housing or the univer-
sity, it also meant the loss o tax revenue
or the City o Pittsburgh (Associated
Press 2004).
Uniersity
Suth
Flrida St.
Petersburg
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
24/36
22 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C h a p t e r 5
Positive Practices forTownGown Relations
Despite requent towngown
tensions, many colleges and
universities have engaged suc-
cessully with their host cities
and neighborhoods. A variety o practices
have shited the relationship rom being ad-
versarial to collaborative by joining stake-
holders in partnerships to achieve common
goals, acilitating buy-in rom the commu-
nity, and achieving long-lasting change.
IN C o R Po R AT IN G S o C IAL
AN D EC o N o M IC PR o G R AM S
Eective land development policy requires
coordination o social and economic pro-
grams (Fainstein 1994). Some colleges and
universities have succeeded in addressing
these issues in the process o revitalizing
the neighborhood or expanding to meet
their academic goals. Positive practices may
include providing aordable housing to pre-
vent displacement o residents, along with
promoting local business development.
Northeastern University in Boston,
Massachusetts, provides a good example o
this approach. The universitys Davenport
Commons project consists o 125 units o
housing or students and sta, 60 aordableowner-occupied townhouses, and 2,100
square eet o retail space. Community
members were concerned about a range
o issues related to the projects physical
design and the threat o neighborhood
gentrication.
The development process was complex,
involving many stakeholders and negotiations
Daenprt Cmmns,
Nrtheastern Uniersity,
Bstn, Massachusetts
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
25/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Calder, Grant, and Muson 2005). The
university partnered on the project with
Madison Park Development Corporation
(MPDC), a local community developmentcorporation, as well as with two local devel-
opers. Along with negotiating a community
benets package o aordable housing,
MPDC helped homeowners set up a con-
dominium association and provided both
technical assistance and education or
rst-time homebuyers.
In other cases, institutions have actively
promoted local business development by
giving neighborhood vendors priority (Strom
2005). For example, the University o Penn-
sylvania has a local contracting program
that generated more than $65 million in
business or West Philadelphia rms in 2002.
Nearly 90 percent o that spending was
directed to women- and minority-owned
businesses operating in the neighborhood.
M AN AG IN G S P I L L o v ER
EFFEC TS TH R o U G H PL AN N IN G
Cities and communities have put both
regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms
in place to manage the impact o university-
led land use and development through bal-
ancing the interests o the university, neigh-
boring residents, and the city as a whole
(Taylor 2007). Regulatory mechanisms in-
clude district plans, land use regulations, and
design standards to guide development and
encourage community participation in
project planning.
In Portland, Oregon, or example, the
planning processes o the city and its univer-
sities are largely intertwined. The goal is to
give institutions the support they need while
also providing the surrounding communities
greater certainty about how the area will be
developed. When Portland State University
(PSU) sought to expand in 1988, Portlands
Central City plan called or creation o a
new plan that would allow or this growth
and provide some direction or development
o the neighborhood.
The Portland Bureau o Planning created
the University District plan in collaborationwith the university and the Downtown
Community Association, integrating the
public vision or the downtown with the
needs o the university. The plan required
mixed uses and provided guidelines or
transit, retail, student and market-rate
housing, amenities, and academic acilities.
The plan also provided the regulatory
ramework needed or the desired uses
(Taylor 2007).
Nonregulatory mechanisms such as
Memorandums o Understanding (MOUs)
are used to manage interactions on specic
projects and to dene the roles and respon-
sibilities o each party. MOUs can address a
range o issues such as boundary determina-
tion or campus development, guidelines or
mitigating impacts on adjacent neighbor-
hoods, and standards or physical develop-
ment, including site planning, storm water
management, and roadway improvements.
Cllege Engineering
and Cmputer Science,
Prtland State Uniersity,
oregn
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
26/36
24 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While there is no legal recourse i a party
ails to honor the MOU, these agreements
help to eliminate ambiguity about the roles
o the city and the university, while alsoproviding a mechanism to track progress
and monitor accountability (Taylor 2007).
San Jose State University, or example,
signed an MOU with the city in 2006 to
embark on a joint planning eortknown
as the South Campus District Planor
the community surrounding the university
(City o San Jose 2009). The partnership
envisioned the district as providing expanded
recreational amenities or residents along
with a regional acility or sports events and
tournaments. The plan also ocused on
improved parking and pedestrian accessibil-ity throughout the area. Having recognized
the need to involve a ull range o commu-
nity stakeholders, the city and university
dedicated a signicant part o the planning
process to community outreach and resi-
dent participation eorts.
IN TEG R AT IN G U N Iv ER S ITY
B U IL D IN G S TH R o U G H D ES IG N
The development requirements o the
modern urban campus are no longer served
by the separation o the university rom its
surroundings. Two new principles that guide
physical design include communicating
institutional values through the built envi-
ronment and nding points o intersection
with the local community (Blaik 2008).
These design principles have shaped
many mixed-use development projects and
helped to improve the integration o univ-
ersity buildings into a community. At the
University o Illinois at Chicago, South
Campus, or example, university buildings
are city buildings, with city services and
retail stores that are mixed with academic
acilities and student residences (Perry,
Wiewel, and Menendez 2009).
A citywide initiative at Syracuse Univer-
sity (SU) provides another good example
o eorts to integrate campus and city. The
Connective Corridor is a 1.5-mile, L-shaped
connector that ensures that students and ac-
ulty can get to the downtown, and that the
downtown can benet rom the university
and more than 25 arts and cultural venues
in the area. The goal is to stitch these loca-
tions together with new urban landscapes,
bike paths, imaginative lighting, public and
interactive art, and signage systems. The SU
Oce o Engagement is leading the initia-
tive, with support rom the city, the state, the
Uniersity Illinis
at Chicag
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
27/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
regional transportation authority, local utility
companies, and the arts community (The
Connective Corridor 2009).
The College o San Mateo in Caliorniahas received several awards or its College
Vista rental housing development or aculty
and sta. The 44-unit complex is located on
a ormer parking lot behind the Administra-
tion Building o the San Mateo County
Community College District.
Because o the vocal opposition o several
neighborhood groups to development at this
location, the principals o Education Hous-
ing Partners initiated an extensive outreach
campaign to understand community concerns
(College Vista 2009). The primary issues or
residents related to the introduction o aor-
dable housing in their backyard, and the
developments visual and economic impacts.
Through a series o meetings, the college
addressed these concerns to the neighbors
satisaction by making design modications
and creating operating guidelines to ensure
the long-term maintenance and upkeep
o the property.
Fo R M AL Iz IN G S TAkEHo L D ER
PART IC IPAT IoN AND
L EAD ER S H IP
Academic institutions, city governments,
and communities used to rely on quick xes
to problems that were episodic and project-
based or task-oriented (Perry and Wiewel
2005). These ad hoc approaches only solved
problems temporarily and did nothing to im-
prove overall university relations with the
city and neighborhood.
In developing more ormal relationships,
highly visible leadership and ongoing com-
munication rom all sides are essential. The
City o Boston, or example, has created a
position in the Mayors Oce to serve as
liaison with institutions o higher education.
Many universities have established an Oce
o Community Aairs or Oce o Commu-
nity Engagement. The leader o that oce
is typically someone rom the community
rather than rom the academic ranks. The
ocepreerably an adjunct to the Presi-dents Oceserves as both the portal
to the university and its liaison to the
community.
Several colleges and universities have also
developed ormal and ongoing relationships
with their neighbors. Clark University in
Worcester established a partnership with
local residents, businesses, and churches to
revitalize its neighborhood in the early 1980s.
This partnership with the Main South Com-
munity Development Corporation (MSCDC)
was ormalized in 1995, and Clark Univer-
sity holds a seat on the board o directors.
Now known as the University Park Part-
nership (UPP), its scope includes a broad-
based strategy emphasizing the development
o neighborhood amenities and the expan-
sion o economic opportunities or neigh-
borhood residents and businesses. The part-
nership has received unding rom a variety
o ederal and private sources. In 2004 it
was awarded the inaugural Carter Partner-
ship Award, the nations most prestigious
recognition or collaborations between univ-
ersities and their communities (Brown and
Geoghegan 2009).
A Partnership or Change is a project
initiated by the University o Wisconsin
Milwaukee and the City o Milwaukee to
advance the UWM campus and surround-
ing neighborhoods. This project originated
rom concerns about maintaining and en-
hancing the areas quality o lie, improving
the physical and social towngown relation-
ship, and nding appropriate strategies to
resolve campusneighborhood conficts.
The planning process or the neighbor-
hood engaged stakeholders to set priorities,
develop strategies, and identiy actions on
key issues. Several groups contributed to the
development o the plan, including neigh-
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
28/36
26 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
borhood associations, special interest groups,
two business improvement districts, the City
o Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, and the
university. The key principle o this initia-tive was a coordinated long-term strategy
or addressing neighborhood issues and to
create an ongoing universityneighborhood
collaboration (City o Milwaukee 2003).
o FFS ETT IN G TAx -ExEM PT
STATUS
With local governments under increasing
scal pressure, some cities and colleges havenegotiated arrangements to make payments
in lieu o taxes (PILOTs) and other ees,
in some cases through a participatory and
inclusive policy process. A range o practices,
policies, and programs related to PILOTs
has emerged at both the state and municipal
levels to compensate or the tax-exempt
status o nonprot institutions.
In 1929 Harvard University became the
rst recorded case o an academic institu-
tion paying PILOTs to a local government.Today, Harvard pays more than $2 million
annually to Cambridge, where its core cam-
pus is located. It also pays $3.8 million a
year until 2054 to the Town o Watertown,
where it recently purchased land, and in
2008 the university paid $1.9 million to the
City o Boston, where it owns several medi-
cal schools and research centers and where
it expects to build new acilities on land it
owns in other parts o the city.
The State o Connecticut instituted a
program in 1978 based on the recognition
that colleges and universities benet every-
one residing in the state, not only those who
happen to live in the particular city in which
an institution is located. To distribute the
tax burden more equitably within this rame-
work, the state makes payments to local
governments that have colleges, universities,
and hospitals in their jurisdictions to com-
pensate or the revenue oregone rom these
tax-exempt institutions. Although the state
is unable to reimburse the ull cost o the
property tax payments, unding levels were
close to 64 percent o the assessed taxes in
2004 (Leland 2006).
Leland (2006) has also identied several
city-level examples o PILOT programs. For
example, our colleges in Providence, Rhode
Island, agreed in 2003 to pay $50 million toHarard Yard, Harard Uniersity, Cambridge, Massachusetts
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
29/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the city over the next 20 years. In West Long
Branch, New Jersey, Monmouth University
is the townships largest employer and volun-
tarily contributes $190,000 a year to munici-
pal coers.
S U M M AR Y
Table 2 summarizes the towngown practices
that do and do not work in university land
use and development. The common require-
ment or solving the potential confict areas
identied aboveincluding social and
economic issues, spillover eects, planning
process, and tax-exempt statusis to bal-
ance academic and community interests
through a participatory and inclusive process.
Table 2
Uniersity Land Use and Deelpment: What wrs? What des nt?
City and Cmmunity
Cncerns What Wrs? What Des Nt?
Scial Euity Eorts to mitigate displacement and
gentrication, and to generate job opportu-
nities or local residents and businesses.
Ignoring the neighborhoods social and
economic context and issues that might
aect local residents and businesses.
Spiller Eects Regulatory and nonregulatory planning
mechanisms that balance the needs o
the academic and local communities.
Lack o planning by colleges
and universities.
Design Planning and developing the campus
in ways that blend the academic
and local communities.
Development that is out o character
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Planning Prcess A joint planning process that involves the
university, the community, and the city.
Finalizing university land use and
development plans internally.
Leadership Close involvement o the universitypresident or other top-level leaders in
developing and sustaining the commitment
to community engagement.
No ormal mechanism or senior ocialsto work with the city and community,
except on an ad hoc basis.
Ta-eempt Status Recognition o the uneven distribution
o tax burdens throughout the state.
Long-running disputes and court cases
between the universities and cities over
development projects and tax-exempt status.
Brwn Uniersity,
Pridence, Rhde Island
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
30/36
28 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C h a p t e r 6
Moving Toward SuccessfulTownGown Collaborations
Colleges and universities decide
on a variety o property-related
actions. Some o them do not
require input rom their surround-
ing neighborhoods and host cities, such as
routine renovations o existing buildings
and the maintenance o grounds. Other
types o development activities may call
or bilateral decision making, such as joint
research centers between the university and
private industry. New or changing land use
and development decisions, however, tend
to be much more complex and contain the
seeds o uture conficts i the concerns o all
stakeholders are not addressed and resolved
satisactorily. This complexity puts land devel-
opment projects in the category o decisions
that require more dedicated collaborative
processes (gure 7).
It is clearly dicult to devise a ormula
or land use and development that unctions
eciently and eectively while also honor-
ing many stakeholders perspectives. More-
over, there is no single template or how such
a partnership should be ramed since each
situation is dierent. Several considerations
provide general guidelines or designing
successul towngown collaborations.
B AL AN C IN G U N Iv ER S ITY
AN D C o M M U N ITY IN TER ES TS
The undamental goals and interests o
universities, municipal governments, and
neighborhood residents obviously have
some common elements and others that are
divergent and potentially conficting. How-
ever, these anchor institutions, municipalities
and neighborhoods must recognize that they
are part o a large, complex system and
that their ates are intertwined.
Universities play an important role by
contributing to the economy, civic lie, and
Syracuse Uniersity,
New Yr
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
31/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 29
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
built environment o cities by attracting
human capital and technological innovation
and boosting the skills o the workorce. Thecity and neighborhood in turn support the
universitys ability to unction well by oer-
ing the public services and social and cul-
tural amenities that help to keep people
and jobs in the area.
Wo R k IN G To G ETH ER
To WAR D C o M M o N G o AL S
Universities and colleges are major land-
owners and powerul players with relatively
steady revenue streams. In contrast, commu-nity memberswhether residents or com-
munity organizationsoten have unstable
revenue sources at best, and are oten per-
ceived as impediments to development.
Any eort to develop a trusting relationship
must be mindul o this power imbalance
and strive to minimize the dierences. Accord-
ing to Judith Rodin, ormer president o
University o Pennsylvania, Universities
have a lot o great potential to be partners
within cities, but too oten are more like the
4,000-pound gorilla, exercising their inter-
ests in a way that isnt always neighbor-
hood-riendly (Chan 2007).
Working together to develop collaborative
projects helps to identiy common interests
and problems. True towngown collabora-
tion thus means that the university, city, and
neighborhood must work toward specic
goals and objectives by sharing responsibil-
ity, authority, and accountability or achiev-
ing results.
C R EAT IN G L AS T IN G C H AN G E
Successul collaboration requires a sucient
investment o time and resources rom each
stakeholder to create lasting change ounded
on ongoing communication and long-term
relationships. These eorts can generate good
will in the community and support in the
public sector, as well as a sense o cohesion
and cooperation within the university itsel.
By acknowledging each others concerns
and constraints, and the costs and benets
inherent in any long-term working relation-
ship, all parties can look to the uture as a
win-win opportunity or positive growth
and change.
Today, many universities and other
anchor institutions understand their unique
role in urban economic and community
development by becoming engaged with
their cities and neighborhoods. However,
Colleges and universities are the most suc-
cessul institutions o urban development to
the extent that they operate as ully vested
urban institutions, i.e., ully engaged in pro-
ducing the collective capacity o a range o
city leaders to achieve the multiple interests
o cities and communities, as well as univer-
sities, in ways that are mutually agreeable
(Perry, Wiewel, and Menendez 2009, 4).
figure 7
Land Use Deelpment and Planning Reuire
Cllabratie Decisin Maing
Bilateral Collaborative
University,
City and
Neighborhood
University
Only
University and
Business or
University and
Community
UniversityOnly
Stak
eholderInvolvement
Decision-making Continuum
Land use
development
and planning
Expert advice,
research funding, or capacity-
building projects
Renovation of
existing buildings
and landscapes
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
32/36
30 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adams, Carolyn. 2003. The meds and eds in
urban economic development.Journal o Urban
Aairs25 (5):571588.
Associated Press. 2004. Cities increasingly
challenge tax status o universities. USA Today,
March 16.
Axelbank, Rachel L. 2007. Community concern
grows as BC expansion continues.Jewish Advocate.
Benson, Lee, John L. Puckett, and Ira Harkavy.
2007.Deweys dream: Universities and democracies in an
age o education reorm. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Blaik, Omar. 2008. Urban anchors: Creating
places, remaking cities. Paper presented at
University as Civic Partner Conerence, February
1416, 2008, Phoenix, AZ.
Bramwell, Allison, and David A. Wole. 2008.
Universities and regional economic development:
The entrepreneurial University o Waterloo.
Research Policy 37:11751187.
Brown, John, and Jacqueline Geoghegan. 2009.
Bringing the campus to the community: An ex-
amination o the Clark University park partner-
ship ater ten years. In The Impact o Large Land-
owners on Land Markets, ed. Raphael W. Bostic.Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute o Land
Policy.
Calder, Allegra, Gabriel Grant, and Holly Hart
Muson. 2005. No such thing as vacant land:
Northeastern University and Davenport Com-
mons. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 253267.
Chan, Sewell. 2007. When the gown devours the
town. The New York Times, November 16.
Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber. 2009. Larg-
est employers. http://www.cincinnatichamber.com/
liv_b.aspx?menu_id=180&id=7570
City o Milwaukee. 2003.A strategy and vision or the
UWM neighborhood. Milwaukee: Department o
City Development.
City o San Jose. South campus district plan 2009.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/district_plan/
Clark, Terry N., ed. 2003. Urban amenities:
Lakes, opera, and juice barsdo they drive
development? In The city as an entertainment machine.
New York, NY: JAI Press/Elsevier.
r e f e r e n C e s
Coey, Brian, and Yonn Dierwechter. 2005.
The urban university as a vehicle or inner-city
renewal: The University o Washington,
Tacoma. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 8097.
College and University Impact Portal. 2009.
Economic impact report listing. http://www.
edu-impact.com/view/reports
College Vista. 2009. http://smccd.edu/accounts/
smccd/collegevista/
The Connective Corridor. 2009. Overview.
http://connectivecorridor.syr.edu/
Cummings, Scott, Mark Rosentraub, Mary
Domahidy, and Sarah Con. 2005. University
involvement in downtown revitalization: Man-
aging political and nancial risks. In Perry
and Wiewel 2005, 147174.
Deitrick, Sabina, and Tracy Soska. 2005. The
University o Pittsburgh and the Oakland neigh-
borhood: From confict to cooperation, or how
the 800-pound gorilla learned to sit withand
not onits neighbors. In Perry and Wiewel
2005, 2544.
Fainstein, Susan S. 1994. The city builders:
Property, politics, and planning in London and New York.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Florida, Richard. 2005. The ight o the creative
class: The new global competition or talent. London:
Harper Collins.
Glaeser, Edward. 2000. The new economies o
urban and regional growth. In The Oxord Hand-
book o Economic Geography, eds. G. L. Clark, M. S.
Gertler, and M. P. Feldman. Oxord: Oxord
University Press.
Harasta, Joe. 2008. Town-gown relations:
University and neighborhood leaders perceptions
o college and community relations. Ph.D. Thesis.
Wilmington University, New Castle, DE, July.
Harkavy, Ira, and Harmon Zuckerman. 1999.
Eds and meds: Cities hidden assets. Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution.
Herrick, Thaddeus. 2007. Campuses, companies
cozy up. The Wall Street Journal, July 11.
ICIC (Initiative or a Competitive Inner City) and
CEOs or Cities. 2002. Leveraging colleges and univer-
sities or urban economic revitalization: An action agenda.
Chicago, IL: CEOs or Cities.
Jan, Tracy. 2009. Harvard slows work on Allston
complex.Boston Globe, February 19, A1.
Kelley, Lawrence R., and Carl V. Patton.
2005. The university as an engine or downtown
renewal in Atlanta. In Perry and Wiewel 2005,
131146.
Kowalcky, Linda, and Gregory Perkins.
2006.Americas college town. Boston, MA: Boston
Redevelopment Authority Research Department.
Kurtz, Larry R. 2005. Leasing or prot and
control: The case o Victoria University at the
University o Toronto. In Perry and Wiewel
2005, 222238.
Leland, Pamela. 2006. Robbing Peter to pay
Paul: Concerns and contradictions in payments-
in-lieu-o-taxes (pilots) as a source o municipal
revenue. Working paper. Cambridge, MA:
Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.
Marcuse, Peter, and Cuz Potter. 2005. Columbia
Universitys heights: An ivory tower and its
communities. In Perry and Wiewel 2005, 4564.
Mayeld, Loomis. 2001. Town and gown in
America: Some historical and institutional issues
o the engaged university. Education or Health14
(2):231240.
National Center or Education Statistics. 2009.
www.nces.ed.gov
National Science Foundation. 2008. Science and
engineering indicators. Washington DC: National
Science Board.
Perry, David C. 2008. Changing the research
paradigm: From applied to engaged. Paper
presented at University as Civic Partner Con-
erence, February 1416, 2008, Phoenix, AZ.
, and Wim Wiewel. 2005. The university
as urban developer. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe
and the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.
, Wim Wiewel, and Carrie Menendez.
2009. The city, communities, and universities:
360 degrees o planning and development. Work-
ing paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute o
Land Policy.
Pyatt, Rudolph A. 1998. In LeDroit Park,
Howard is teaching by example. The Washington
Post, December 28.
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
33/36
Y e s i m s u n g u - e r Y i l m a z T o w n - G o w n c o l l a b o r a T i o n 31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smith College. 2009. Ford Hall: Construction
Inormation. www.smith.edu/ordhall/construction/
background.php
Strom, Elizabeth. 2005. The political strategies
behind university-based development. In Perry
and Wiewel 2005, 116130.
Taylor, Jill S. 2007.Mechanisms or cities to manage:
Institutionally led real estate development. Working
paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute o
Land Policy.
Tobin, Thomas. 1989. Slowed USF plans keeping
land idle. St. Petersburg Times,January 22:1.
UC San Diego. 2008. A study o the economic
impact and benets o UC San Diego. http://
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/EconomicImpact/pd/
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. American Commu-
nity Survey Population Estimates or 2007.
www.census.gov/acs/www/
Varga, A. 2000. Local academic knowledge trans-
ers and the concentration o economic activity.
Journal o Regional Science40 (2):289309.
Vidal, Avis, Nancy Nye, Christopher Walker,
Carlos Manjarrez, Clare Romanik. 2002. Lessons
rom the community outreach partnership center
program. Prepared or the U.S. Department o
Housing and Urban Development Oce o
Policy Development and Research.
Webber, Henry S. 2005. The University o
Chicago and its neighbors: A case study in com-
munity development. In Perry and Wiewel 2005,
6579.
Colleges and Universities
Cited in this Report
Boston College, Newton and Boston, Massachusetts
Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts
College o San Mateo, Caliornia
Columbia University, New York, New York
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Georgia State University, Atlanta
Harvard University, Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts
Howard University, Washington, DC
Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis
Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
Portland State University, Oregon
Pratt Institute, New York, New York
San Jose State University, Caliornia
Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts
Syracuse University, New York
University o Caliornia, Berkeley
University o Caliornia, San DiegoUniversity o Cincinnati, Ohio
University o Illinois at Chicago
University o Maryland, College Park and Baltimore
University o MissouriSt. Louis
University o Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
University o Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
University o South Florida St. Petersburg
University o Washington, Tacoma
University o WisconsinMilwaukee
Victoria University at the University o Toronto, Canada
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
34/36
32 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r T l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acnwledgments
I am deeply indebted to Rosalind Greenstein, ormer senior ellow and chair o the
Department o Economic and Community Development, whose guidance and suggestions
helped me with this report and during my tenure at the Institute. In recognition o the
importance o large-scale educational institutions in urban settings, she had started the
City, Land, and the University program in 2001 with Wim Wiewel, now president o Port-
land State University, and David C. Perry, now director o the Great Cities Institute at the
University o Illinois at Chicago. This multiyear collaborative project supported several
workshops and conerences, and produced numerous books and working papers
that can be viewed on the Lincoln Institute Web site (www.lincolninst.edu) .
I would also like to acknowledge the contributions o other sta at the Lincoln Institute.
Research assistant Courtney Knapp took on the task o collecting data and reviewing many
newspapers articles or this report. Project associate Harini Venkatesh, and department
administrators Anne Battis and Carol Arnaud provided valuable support to the program
over the past several years.
This report has also beneted immeasurably rom the close and critical reading
o earlier drats by Gregory K. Ingram, Marcia Fernald, Ann LeRoyer, David C. Perry,
and Wim Wiewel.
Crnell Uniersity,
Ithaca, New Yr
7/30/2019 Town-Gown Collaboration
35/36
ordering Inrmatin
To download a ree copy o this report or
to order copies o the printed report, visit
www.lincolninst.edu and search by author or title.For additional inormation on discounted
prices or bookstores, multiple-copy orders,
and shipping and handling costs, send your
inquiry to lincolnorders@pssc.com.
Prductin Credits
P R O J E C T M A N A G E R
Ann LeRoyer
P R O J E C T E D I T O R
Marcia Fernald
D E S I G N & P R O D U C T I O N :
DG Communications/NonproftDesign.comP R I N T I N G :
Recycled Paper Printing, Boston
113 Brattle StreetCambridge, MA 02138-3400 USA
Phone: 617-661-3016 or800-526-3873
Fax: 617-661-7235 or800-526-3944
Web: www.lincolninst.edu
Email: help@lincolninst.edu
Printed on recycled paper
using soy-based inks.
Lincln Institute Land Plicy
www.lincolninst.edu
Lincoln Institute is a private operating oundation whose mission is
to improve the quality o public debate and decisions in the areas
o land policy and land-related taxation in the United States and
around the world. The Institutes goals are to integrate theory and
practice to better shape land policy and to provide a nonpartisan
orum or discussion o the multidisciplinary orces that infuence
public policy. The Institute seeks to inorm decision making through
education, research, demonstration projects, and the dissemination
o inormation through publications, our Web site, and other media.
Lincoln Institute programs bring together scholars, practitioners,
public ocials, policy advisers, and involved citizens in a collegial
learning environment.
Phtgraphs
F R O N T C O V E R
Top let: Cornell University,