The university and its neighborhood: A study of place-making and change

ABSTRACT

Universities are looking beyond their campuses, reconceiving of neighborhoods as assets rather than liabilities. But what does this mean for the neighborhood? This study evaluates place-based change in 22 university neighborhoods with revitalization investments. Using census housing value and rent data, the study employs a multidimensional typology to analyze changes by city markets and university strategy. The cases demonstrate how university revitalization initiatives, regardless of their intensity or place-based focus, are meaningfully correlated with neighborhood change. The associations are most visible in places with strong city-level housing markets but also in other cities when university efforts emphasize place-based investment. These observations highlight the potential for university market-boosting effects but also the unique opportunity to moderate housing market pressures alongside anchor institution investments.

Acknowledgments

I extend my thanks to Julia Koschinsky for her support and feedback on earlier versions of this article. In addition, I thank the anonymous reviewers and Journal of Urban Affairs editors for their insightful comments throughout the peer review process.

Notes

1. The university survey defined revitalization activities as institutional initiatives targeting off-campus, neighborhood quality-of-life issues, including physical conditions (e.g., crime and safety, public infrastructure and amenities, housing), socioeconomic conditions (e.g., poverty, unemployment), and/or services (e.g., commercial and retail, neighborhood schools). Respondents reported activities using seven predetermined categories of engagement, which were identified through a scan of the anchor institution literature. The categories spanned traditional engagement efforts, including (a) public safety initiatives, (b) public amenity investments, (c) student volunteerism and community service, and (d) support initiatives for K-12 education, and more recent anchor strategies, including (e) housing, (f) commercial, and (g) economic development initiatives. For the latter anchor approaches, the survey solicited additional details about the specific strategies and supporting information.

2. Population growth is a flow measure that accounts for the influx (or outflow) of households. This measure serves as a proxy for changing housing demand within a city. As a robustness check, the author also considered multiple city size metrics as potential criteria for stratifying city markets, including 2010 Census measures of city population, metropolitan area population, and city population density per square mile. There were no strong patterns among the city or metropolitan area sizes and the other market criteria. Strong housing markets were evident in cities and metropolitan areas of all sizes (e.g., Chicago, large city and metro population; Boston, moderate city and large metro population; and Tacoma, small city and moderate metro population). This pattern was also evident in cities with moderate and weak housing variables. Population density revealed more consistent patterns, with denser cities aligning with stronger housing market variables. However, there was still variation; for example, Portland and Tacoma have substantially smaller population densities and stronger housing market variables, whereas Philadelphia has a higher population density and more moderate housing variables.

3. To account for changes in census boundaries, the author collected 1990 data from the Neighborhood Change Database, which normalized 1990 tracts to 2010 boundaries. Additionally, the author transformed 1990 median home values and rents into 2010 currency using the Consumer Price Index. Transformed dollar amounts were rounded to the nearest $100 to account for variation in Consumer Price Index conversion factors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Meagan M. Ehlenz

Meagan M. Ehlenz is an Assistant Professor at the School of Geographical Sciences & Urban Planning at Arizona State University. Her research interests include urban revitalization, gentrification, and community development with an emphasis on the roles and impacts of anchor institutions in urban settings.