Neighborhood Revitalization and the Anchor Institution

Abstract

Universities are increasingly faced with central city decline; anchored by their assets-primarily real estate-and, sometimes, institutional missions, many have felt threatened by neighborhood deterioration. In response, several universities have intervened in neighborhood decline over the last two decades, initiating revitalization and physical improvement strategies. Since 1996, the University of Pennsylvania has been a leader in this work, investing in the West Philadelphia Initiatives (WPI) to address safety, vacancy, and disinvestment concerns. This study utilizes Census data to evaluate changes in the character of University City between 1990 and 2010. Analysis suggests that, contrary to popular belief, the neighborhood improved but did not gentrify. The story, however, does not end there. While the neighborhood did not gentrify as a whole, the portion served by the Penn-sponsored public K-8 school experienced drastic change. As the blocks inside the school's catchment grew wealthier, more homogeneous, and more educated, these upward trends masked continued socioeconomic decline in the remainder of the neighborhood.

Anchor Institution Strategies in the Southeast: Working with Hospitals and Universities to Support Inclusive Growth

“…There, the university came to adopt an anchor strategy after two students were killed in 1994 and 1996 just a few blocks from campus. In the aftermath, university administrators received calls from parents and students to improve safety, and there were drops in enrolled students in the subsequent academic years (Ehlenz, 2016). For other anchors, they came to realize that their longer-term future was closely tied to the health and vitality of their surrounding neighborhoods.…”

“…This is not necessarily an easy task. Universities may have a history of intentionally walling themselves off from the surrounding communities, be implicated in failed urban renewal policies that left their surrounding communities blighted, or opportunistically expanded on the heels of the urban crisis at the expense of the community (Ehlenz, 2016;Kleiman et al, 2015). This history can affect the community's willingness to trust anchor program leaders.…”

“…Ehlenz, 2016 provides a review of literature on the economic contribution urban universities make across these three categories.…”

The University, Neighborhood Revitalization, and Civic Engagement: Toward Civic Engagement 3.0

“…Universities and other higher education institutions are increasingly viewed as examples of place-based anchors, and are assumed to offer expertise and fiscal support to "revitalize" their host neighborhoods [17][18][19]). In the United States, more than half of all universities are located in central cities, and a growing number of them are engaged in some form of physical neighborhood intervention, including both public and private institutions [10]. The interest in residentially upgrading the university neighborhood is supposedly driven by "enlightened" self-interest-an ethos based on the institution's rootedness in geographic space and its public service mission [20][21][22][23].…”

“…Later in the 1990s, now operating within the engaged university framework, higher education institutions implemented a similar, yet more comprehensive, but equally flawed market-driven model of neighborhood revitalization [10,11]). The essay concludes by arguing that to realize its potential, the engaged university must learn from past mistakes and implement, what we call, university engagement "3.0."…”