From Enclave to
Urban Institution:
The University,
the City and Land
David C. Perry
University of Illinois at Chicago
and
Wim Wiewel
University of Baltimore
Universities as Urban Developers
Washington Consortium of Universities
May 24, 2006
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
2
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
3
The University as Urban Developer:
Three Topics and Some Conclusions
• The “Campus” and the “City” - universitycommunity 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
4
The Campus and the City
University-Community Development Practices,
from Neighborhood, to Central City to Region
• 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
5
The “Deal”
Acquisition, Finance and Development Practices
• 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
6
The Ethics of the Institution
The Ethics of University Real Estate Development
• 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?
7
…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.
8
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
9
Motivations, Projects, Impact
1. Need for space
•
•
•
Academic (research)
Dorms
Entertainment
2. Improve the neighborhood
3. Income
10
University of Washington, Tacoma
11
Auraria University Campus
12
University of Illinois, Chicago
South Campus
13
University of Illinois, Chicago
South Campus
14
University of Illinois, Chicago
South Campus
15
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
16
Process:
2. Internal structure
• Small team for partnerships
• Strong internal capabilities
• Expertise and decision-making ability
17
Process:
3. Partners
• Half acted alone
• Fully authorized intermediaries
Community intermediary will not deflect
heat.
18
Process:
3. Partners – Private developers
• Ground lease, developer at risk
• Joint venture
• For-fee
Vary along risk-reward continuum
19
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
20
Ohio State University
21
Northeastern University
Davenport Commons
22
Northeastern University
Davenport Commons
23
University of Pittsburgh
24
Process:
5. Relations with city government
•
•
•
•
•
•
PILOT
Regulations
Comprehensive and Master Plans
Mixed conflict & cooperation
Relationships matter
Need for more consistent joint planning
25
Process:
6. The long and winding road
• Longer than usual because of:
•
•
•
•
Unclear conceptualization
Unclear development entity
Multiple constituencies
Exit not an option
26
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
27
DePaul University
Loop Campus
28
Multi-University Real-Estate Projects
Institution name
Project name
Reason 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
29
Boston Arts Academy
High School
• Structure:
– Renovated vacant building (226,000 sf.)
– Shared space with another high school
• Institution Names:
• Financing:
– Universities pledged in kind resources
– Berklee College of Music, the Boston
Conservatory, Emerson College,
• Cons:
Massachusetts College of Art, and the
– Finding suitable space
School of the Museum of Fine Arts
– Initial budget constraints
• Synopsis:
– Duel-enrollment programs: feeder school
– A consortium of universities developed
• Pros:
the first and only arts high school in
– Community and city buy-in:
downtown Boston.
• The BAA only accepts applications from
students who live in Boston.
• History:
– BAA is now almost completely self– ProArts is an association of six
sufficient thorough donor dollars
neighboring Boston art universities that
formed a 501.c3. Through this 501.c3, a • Key to success:
charter school was conceived,
– Ability to accept unexpected results.
developed, & graduated its first students
30
in 2001
Bio-Innovation
Center
• Structure:
• 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 Orleansbased universities.
• History:
– A 501.c3 formed through funding from
the LA Department of Economic
Development.
– 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
31
University Center
• Structure:
– 35,000 square feet of retail
– Dormitory houses 1,700 students.
– Construction began on June 1, 2001 and
officially opened August 16th 2003.
• 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.
• 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
32
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
33
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)
dperry@uic.edu and wwiewel@ubalt.edu
34