University investments in neighborhood revitalization differed substantially across institutional sectors, as well as between individual universities—both in terms of how universities defined revitalization and the kinds of activities they pursued. The two most popular investments made by universities in the study included community service, reflecting the conventional definition of university-community engagement, and public amenities (Figure 3.8). While neither of these investments reflects the physical interventions of the post-1990 era, a majority of universities reported activity in these areas as well. A majority of university strategies included investments in housing (seventy-three percent), commercial (sixty-eight percent), or economic development (seventy-seven percent).
Stratifying respondents by institutional sector provides a clearer picture of how universities are shaping their neighborhood revitalization strategies (Figure 3.9). Public universities followed the overall trend, pursuing community service and public amenities more frequently than other initiatives. They were also more likely to define their revitalization activities broadly. For instance, the University of Washington-Tacoma cited their partnership with the City of Tacoma to develop environmental impact statements as a commercial development activity. While the effort did not directly result in property development or entrepreneurship opportunities, it did pave the way for developers to continue investing in the revitalization of downtown Tacoma.
In contrast, private universities were significantly involved in all three of the post-1990 revitalization approaches, in addition to the more conventional engagement strategies. On average, a private institution invested in six out of the seven revitalization categories in the survey; all invested in at least two out of the three post-1990 activities. Public universities invested in 4.5 revitalization categories on average and were divided on the post-1990 activities—thirty percent invested in one activity, thirty percent in two, thirty percent in all three, and one institution did not report any involvement in these categories.
Figure 3.9 University revitalization initiatives, university activity by sector
As primary institutions engaged in neighborhood revitalization interventions, major research institutions also gravitated towards different investment patterns. These differences are illustrated by comparing RU-VH to RU-H respondents (Figure 3.10). For instance, RU-VH schools reported substantially more engagement in housing and commercial activities than RU-H institutions—all RU-VH schools had made some type of investment. Both types of universities valued investments in public safety, with all eighteen respondents reporting activity, though RU-H universities were more likely to pursue community service (one hundred percent versus seventy percent of RU-VHs) and economic development efforts (eighty-eight percent versus seventy percent of RU-VHs). It is worth noting, however, the RU-VH respondents are mostly from private universities and RU-H respondents are mostly from public institutions, which makes it impossible to discount governance structure as a factor.
Figure 3.10 University revitalization initiatives, university activity by major research classification (Carnegie)
3.4.4 University Neighborhood Revitalization: Housing, Commercial, and
Economic Development
Focusing on the primary post-1990 revitalization interventions—housing, commercial, and economic development, project-based, physical and market interventions dominated the landscape, as opposed to programmatic interventions targeted to specific populations or socio-economic conditions. New construction projects, often comprised of private development on university-owned land, were at the center of most university revitalization strategies and were represented far more often than homeownership programs or targeted workforce development initiatives, for example.
In housing activities, private universities were significantly more active than public institutions (Figure 3.11). The majority of investments consisted of new construction or major rehabilitation projects that mostly addressed off-campus student
housing needs, although a few respondents reported investment in market rate and affordable housing projects. Property management also contributed to more than half of university housing strategies; most properties were multi-family buildings, though one university managed single-family properties as well. More than half of private universities investing in housing revitalization included homeownership incentives in their strategies; conversely, only one public institution offered a homeownership incentive. Private university programs typically targeted full and part-time permanent university employees, though two institutions also had programs for low-income households unaffiliated with the university. Benefits were typically delivered through grants, forgivable loans, and/or guaranteed mortgages; in some cases, households had the opportunity to participate in both university and city homeownership incentives, which enhanced the institution’s ability to attract faculty and staff to the neighborhood.
In the commercial investment category, universities—public and private—were fairly consistent in their approaches (Figure 3.12). More than half of private institutions reported activity in all three subsets of commercial investment—property development, management, and tenancy. Public universities were equally diverse in their investments. Similar to housing development, commercial property development largely consisted of private developers building on university-owned land via long-term leases. Property management strategies varied: Some institutions held commercial property as part of their long-term asset plan, leasing to a commercial tenant as an interim strategy; others actively managed their commercial property as part of their amenity-driven, “sense of place” strategy, seeking a mix of tenants to satisfy the needs of students, university employees, and neighborhood residents.
Economic development strategies represent the last post-1990 revitalization category. While universities reported activity in this category (Figure 3.13), their responses were the least consistent in terms of types of activities and definitions. Eighty percent of private universities in the study reported economic development strategies; fifty percent of public institutions invested in some form of economic development. Approximately half of the universities participating in economic development efforts claimed comprehensive programs, meaning they were involved in at least three of the four sub-activities in the category. However, only two institutions—both private— described strategies that deliberately sought to concentrate institutional resources (e.g., procurement, hiring, contracting) in a specific neighborhood, which would reflect their other revitalization strategies. Others described diffuse investments in economic development that spanned the city or region, for instance.
Responses to economic revitalization questions suggest three things. First, though several universities report investments in economic development, the geographic focus was distinct from other physical revitalization interventions. While housing and commercial projects were typically neighborhood based, economic strategies often targeted the entire city or region.
Second, many of the economic strategies were rooted in existing policies or protocols; they often were not part of a focused revitalization initiative. For example, public universities were already participating in a version of local procurement and contracting as an extension of their state mandates; some private universities were required to comply with local hiring and/or procurement as a condition of their city- approved institutional master plans or community benefits agreements. Here, too, “local” was a relative term and often referred to the city or region.
Third, economic development activities often occurred at a high level, intersecting with citywide initiatives or community service activities. While some strategies represented direct investments in wealth generation, via job creation, skills training, procurement investments, or entrepreneurship, other programs sought to build awareness or opportunities more broadly. For instance, one institution described a neighborhood newsletter project, staffed by university students and designed to highlight residents and opportunities in a low-income community; another referenced a career development program intended to provide skills for regional business sectors.