Date post: | 23-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ashlie-james |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
From Enclave to Urban Institution:
The University, the City and Land
David C. PerryUniversity of Illinois at Chicago
and
Wim WiewelUniversity of Baltimore
Universities as Urban DevelopersWashington Consortium of Universities
May 24, 2006
2
Rethinking the University and the City
FROM “ENCLAVE” - removed from the “turmoil” of the city. A campus for the “academic community”
TO “URBAN INSTITUTION” - not simply “in the city, but of the city” - an “engine” or “driver” of contemporary urban development
3
University as Urban Developer
• The “campus” isn’t the campus any more…it’s much more
• University development is increasingly “mixed use” development - blurring academic and commercial uses, the edge of the old campus, even the meaning of “university building”
• Campus master plan as city plan/city plan as master plan
• Dramatic shifts in the institutional practices of universities in cities: partners in economic development sites, multi-university real estate projects and programs
4
The University as Urban Developer: Three Topics and Some Conclusions
• The “Campus” and the “City” - university-community development practices at the level of:– Neighborhood– Central City– Region
• The “Deal” Acquisition, Finance and Development Strategies
• The Ethics of the Institution: The Societal Role of the University and Real Estate Practice
• Summary Statements: to introduce our key findings
5
The Campus and the City
• Neighborhoods and Universities– Town-Gown conflict - Columbia, Northeastern– Urban renewal and public land clearance - U of C– Community development principles - new practice in
universities
• Central City Core and Universities– Re-urbanization anchor - U. Wash Tacoma– Cluster development - Auraria Campus, Denver, Georgia
Tech– Urban politics as university practice - Pitt
• City, Region and University– Leadership – Georgia State – Negotiation - Victoria (U of Toronto)/McKinsey– Political and financial management of risk - IUPUI
University-Community Development Practices, from Neighborhood, to Central City to Region
6
The “Deal”
• Fiscal practices of acquisition and development– Debt– Revenue– “Endowment”
• The partners in the “deal:” university, city and private sector
• The deal and the dealmakers– Politics - Temple vs. Penn– Partnerships - DePaul University– Intermediaries - Ohio State/Campus Partners
Acquisition, Finance and Development Practices
7
The Ethics of the Institution
• How closely should the “business” of university real estate practice adhere to the mission of the academy? The farther away from the academic mission, the less successful the deal.
• Does the university take on a different obligation as “developer?” A real conflict between market success and public good.
• What key lessons do we learn from the expanding role of university as developer? Does this mean the university has become the “engine” of urban growth?
The Ethics of University Real Estate Development
8
…a few summary statements to introduce our key findings
1. If not “engines” of urban development, universities, at the very least, are sources of increasingly “mixed” use development - blurring the edge, the structure and in some cases the very meaning of “campus.”
2. It is also clear, that real estate practices are key to the fiscal and programmatic future of higher education - program, endowment and urban context
3. As such, as universities embed themselves ever more fully in the land economy of the city, they become more visibly important, perhaps even foundational, urban institutions.
9
Questions• How do universities conduct real estate
development projects outside traditional campus boundaries?– Motivation– Type of projects– Impact– The process:
• Leadership• Internal structure• Partners• Relations with community• Relations with city government• Time lines and obstacles• Financing
10
Motivations, Projects, Impact
1. Need for space• Academic (research)
• Dorms
• Entertainment
2. Improve the neighborhood
3. Income
11
University of Washington, Tacoma
12
Auraria University Campus
13
University of Illinois, ChicagoSouth Campus
14
University of Illinois, ChicagoSouth Campus
15
University of Illinois, ChicagoSouth Campus
16
Process:
1. Leadership• Personal commitment from the top
- OSU, Penn, Marquette, Georgia State, Pitt vs. Ryerson, Temple, Louisville
or
• Institutionalize commitment- Victoria, U of C, Denver
17
Process:
2. Internal structure• Small team for partnerships• Strong internal capabilities• Expertise and decision-making ability
18
Process:
3. Partners• Half acted alone• Fully authorized intermediaries
Community intermediary will not deflect heat.
19
Process:
3. Partners – Private developers• Ground lease, developer at risk• Joint venture• For-fee
Vary along risk-reward continuum
20
Process:
4. Community relations• History of urban renewal• Progress on ethics; cycles of learning• Role of intermediaries: worth it?• “There is no such thing as vacant land”• History, image, politics matter more than
land
21
Ohio State University
22
Northeastern University Davenport Commons
23
Northeastern University Davenport Commons
24
University of Pittsburgh
25
Process:
5. Relations with city government• PILOT• Regulations• Comprehensive and Master Plans• Mixed conflict & cooperation• Relationships matter• Need for more consistent joint planning
26
Process:
6. The long and winding road• Longer than usual because of:
• Unclear conceptualization• Unclear development entity• Multiple constituencies• Exit not an option
27
Process:7. Financing
• Methods- Bonds- Certificates of Participation- Capital grants- Private capital and leasing- Debt finance through intermediary- TIF - Loans - Gifts- Operating funds
• DePaul case
28
DePaul UniversityLoop Campus
29
Multi-University Real-Estate Projects
Institution name Project nameReason for development
University of Arizona, Phoenix & Arizona State University, West
ASU Satellite Campus Need for space
South West Texan University Temple College at Taylor, & Austin Community College
Round Rock Higher Education Center
Community Development
Berklee College of Music, New England Conservatory, and Boston Conservatory
Hynes Convention Center
Need for Space
Berklee College of Music, the Boston Conservatory, Emerson College, Massachusetts College of Art, and the School of the Museum of Fine Arts
Boston Arts Academy Charter High School
Community Development
Boston Hebrew and Andover/ Newton Theological School
Newton Campus Need for Space
Drexel University & University of Pennsylvania Biotech Park Need for Space
Emmanuel College & Harvard University Merck Research Building
Need for Space
Louisiana State University & Tulane University Bio-Innovation Center Need for Space
DePaul University, Roosevelt University, and Columbia College.
University Center Need for Space
University of Arizona (Phoenix) & University of Minnesota
Mount Graham Telescope Project
Need for Space
30
Boston Arts Academy High School
• Institution Names: – Berklee College of Music, the Boston
Conservatory, Emerson College, Massachusetts College of Art, and the School of the Museum of Fine Arts
• Synopsis: – A consortium of universities developed
the first and only arts high school in downtown Boston.
• History: – ProArts is an association of six
neighboring Boston art universities that formed a 501.c3. Through this 501.c3, a charter school was conceived, developed, & graduated its first students in 2001
• Structure: – Renovated vacant building (226,000 sf.)– Shared space with another high school
• Financing: – Universities pledged in kind resources
• Cons: – Finding suitable space – Initial budget constraints– Duel-enrollment programs: feeder school
• Pros:– Community and city buy-in:
• The BAA only accepts applications from students who live in Boston.
– BAA is now almost completely self-sufficient thorough donor dollars
• Key to success: – Ability to accept unexpected results.
31
Bio-Innovation Center
• Structure: – New 130,000 square foot facility – Located on Canal Street in downtown
New Orleans.– Scheduled to open Fall 2007
• Financing: – $30 million
• Pros: – Supports the commercialization of
research developed at the LSU and Tulane health sciences centers.
– Attracts out-of-state bioscience firms to Louisiana.
• Cons:– Delays in completion
• Key to success: – Continued commitment from the State
• Institution Names: – Louisiana State University & Tulane
University
• Synopsis: – The New Orleans Bio-Innovation
Center is a technology business incubator created to foster entrepreneurship within the New Orleans bioscience community.
– To assist companies commercializing biotechnologies from New Orleans-based universities.
• History: – A 501.c3 formed through funding from
the LA Department of Economic Development.
32
University Center
• Institution Names: – DePaul University, Roosevelt University, and
Columbia College
• Synopsis: – University Center of Chicago is the largest joint
student residence hall in the United States.
• History: – In the late 1990s, DePaul tried to persuade the
city of Chicago to let it build a dormitory, but the city, eager to see a grandiose project there that could help revitalize that end of the South Loop, turned down DePaul's request.
– DePaul approached its neighbors and collectively formed a 501.c3
– The city government donated the building's site to the Educational Advancement Fund which is developing the project.
– University Center was about six years in the making.
• Structure: – 35,000 square feet of retail – Dormitory houses 1,700 students.– Construction began on June 1, 2001 and
officially opened August 16th 2003.
• Financing: – $151 Million through tax exempt bonds– All three agreed to cover the rent for their
beds upfront for the first year if the property wasn't fully leased.
– U.S. Equities Student Housing, can offer the apartments and suites to students if not fully leased.
• Pros:– Provides multiple avenues of revenue
(conferences, retail, community & student housing)
• Cons: – Risk of diluting Universities’ culture– Increases in cost of operation
• Key to success: – Developing a single vision
33
Conclusions• Major projects require strong leadership• Neighborhood improvements successful, but
take long time• Most universities “go it alone”• Private developers’ and formal intermediaries’
role needs specification• Community relations amenable to improvement
& learning• Relations with government too episodic• Little difference between public & private
universities
34
Background• Great Cities Institute. University of Illinois at Chicago
and the Great Cities Commitment http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/
• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Great Cities Institute: City, Land and University Project http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/clu/ http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/
• Annual workshops: Boston, Toronto, Atlanta, Portland and Chicago
• David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel (eds.) The University as Urban Developer: Case Studies and Analysis (M.E. Sharpe, May 2005)