Interchange: Campus and City
Urban college campuses greatly impact students and the surrounding society economically, sustainably and culturally. There has been a decline in city campuses since the 1950’s, when old urban-industrial heartlands, known as Rustbelts, were prevalent (Bromley and Kent, 45). However, despite this decline, when talk of a national urban crisis became common in the 1960’s, an increase in the need for an urban grant system or at least federal funding for urban university outreach became apparent. There are no databases to measure the extent of outreach by urban campuses across the full range of the US, but nevertheless, dozens of universities have attracted widespread attention as leaders in neighborhood revitalization and off-campus real estate development. This societal revitalization can be contrasted between neighborhoods near private institutions and public institutions. Private schools have more flexibility in implementing their projects because they are often wealthier than public schools, who are constrained by rigid government contracting and procurement rules, by constant legislative scrutiny and sometimes by laws that block the purchase of off-campus properties.
Many university campuses have also had a long process of transformation. Specifically, the American campus looks the way it does today due to universities oscillations between isolation from society and integration into society (Gilbert, 78). The contemporary campus is a result of the choices made by universities to either be open or closed to state and national requirements, demands from industry and foundations, and the requirements of the society that exists near the university. The campus, then, as an entity both physically and spatially, gives access to data that enables the concatenation of reflections on the relationship between the surrounding city and the university. Urban universities “have a positive impact on surrounding neighborhoods, they will improve their institutional image, improve the image of the city that they are located in, recruit more and better students, and attract more research grants, contracts and charitable donations. They are also likely to increase their institutional cultural and ethnic diversity, recruiting more and better urban minority students, and more minority faculty.”
Bromley, Ray, and Robert B. Kent. "Integrating Beyond the Campus: Ohio's Urban Public Universities and Neighborhood Revitalisation." Planning Practice & Research 21.1 (2006): 45-78. Web. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697450600901517#.VRx0YxDF90Q>.
Giliberti, Marco. "The Campus in the Twentieth Century: The Urban Campus in Chicago from 1890-1965." Urbani 22.2 (2011): 77-84. Web.
By adjusting the typical method used for examining university impacts, which uses inputs output analysis, and applying it to small colleges and universities in surrounding areas, one can tell how a university can affect a city surroundings. Steinacker found that making the adjustments can give accurate estimates on the impact of colleges on cities. They provide jobs, salary, output, security, land ownership, etc. One major finding was that even though students are not factored into the local economic impact, students often stay after graduation to pursue university jobs. This opens up the real estate market, transportation needs, and local commerce. Colleges and universities create many jobs that have direct impacts on the economy of a city. however this was not the only study that supported the argument about college campuses being beneficial to local economic. Data analysis on individual student expenditure proves the theory to be true even further. (Steinacker)
Ohme’s study is going off of a previous study of economic impact from the university of delaware. In the findings, students were questioned on their expenditures, excluding school expenditures. It was found that the average expenditure at the university of delaware was in the thousands of dollars. In addition, the university housing system provided stores and restaurants with labor and work, both current students and recent alumni. By applying a multiplier effect, it was determined that universities bring in money to urban areas with the amount of labor they hire, consumption, student consumption.The article uses quantitatives to support the argument about economic benefits of college campuses and proves that campuses open up a world of opportunity, as if it were a small city in and of itself.
In the summarized version of the online academic literature, there seems to be a common theme on economics and college campus locations. There is a correlation between city and campus proximity and the two seem to be interdependent. both authors found that universities help local economies by employing students and graduates, local commerce, and hiring the local population. Not only do college campuses directly impact economic activity in a city or small town, there are indirect economic benefits. Palo Alto, the tech center of the world, is located almost next to stanford as many of the graduates go on to that industry. Ann Arbor, was recently voted one of the most intelligent cities in the US. This creates the need for further economic activity. The findings in both articles examined strongly point to increased economic activity near college towns. College campuses are economically like cities because they have the need for economic activity as if it were a city. There is a demand for local labor,restaurants, real estate, custodial work, police force and everything a municipality would need to thrive just in the form of a private entity.
Steinacker, Anette “The Economic Effect of Urban Colleges on their Surroundings.” Urban Studies. Vol 42. Pg 1161-1175 (2005)
Ohme, Allison “The Economic Impact of a University on its Community and State: Examining Trends Four Years Later” Institutional Research Analyst. University of Delaware. (2003)
Cultural Integration (Colin)
In “Students and the Second Ghetto”, Winling documents the effect of University of Chicago (U of C) programs for racial segregation and disenfranchisement on the urban planning and social fabric of Chicago neighborhoods. After World War II, U of C envisioned itself as a “global institution” - at the same time, deep racial inequities in Chicago's neighborhoods led to tensions that would contribute to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. The notion of U of C as an elite, international university clashed with the economic disadvantage of primarily Black residents of the urban communities that surrounded the campus in Chicago's South Side. In service of its vision of prestige and expansion, U of C undertook a large role in urban renewal projects.
This particular case-study represents a common historical trend in which the university, as a public institution, encompassed both “economic and policy elites on one hand and grassroots activists on the other.” This multiplicity of interests made universities instrumental in programs of postwar renewal.
In the 1950's, U of C administrators designed a plan for expansion composed of “campus planning, slum clearance, urban renewal, and building educational coalitions.” The object of this initiative was to create a buffer between the campus and Chicago's Black and integrated neighborhoods. When challenged by neighborhood grassroots activists, the administrators successfully lobbied for the eminent domain to be available to a private corporation of university officials. This effectively gave U of C the political authorization to redevelop the high-density Black neighborhoods as a barrier between Chicago's Black Belt and the campus. In creating new developments, U of C employed well-known architects like Harry Weese and Eero Saarinen, perhaps lending credence to the administrative mission of globalization.
As the U of C campus expanded, university trustees were able to attract outside investors to develop the now-profitable neighborhoods as well as federal and philanthropic grants for continued urban renewal. Increased availability and diversity of services allowed the university to better recruit students from a national pool, in turn decreasing their connection to the local community.
Throughout this period, the university leadership was fighting against a growing urban Black population in the regions into which it wanted to expand. Acquiring private, off-campus property proved more difficult than the eminent-domain seizure of public housing. One strategy was adopted from the nearby Illinois Institute of Technology, newly redesigned under the guidance of Mies van der Rohe: the university administrators used their networks of influence to reduce the enforcement of code violations in the desired districts. This would engender exploitative rental practices, undesirable or unsafe building conditions, and inadequacy of public services. The sharp decrease in quality of life would cause many residents to move, allowing U of C to acquire many parcels of land under the guise of 'dealing with “threat properties'. U of C would further collude with local landlords to subsidize apartment leases during summer vacancies to reserve the space for students in the Fall, thereby denying access to would-be Black residents.
The grassroots response to U of C's racially-motivated land acquisitions and development involved, ironically, many U of C students, staff, and faculty. Groups like the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC), and the Temporary Woodlawn Organization (TWO) staged protests, built electoral power, and anticipated the larger struggle for civil rights on the urban front.
On the other side of the world, a similar interplay emerged with the roles reversed. Donaldson et al define “studentification” as “a process where the original residents in the vicinity of tertiary institutions are gradually displaced due to an in-migration of students causing spatial dysfunctionality.”
In “ Reshaping urban space through studentification”, the underlying progression of a growing student population is as follows: more university students leads to a niche market for student services; single-family residential areas are rezoned to accommodate development of this market; existing residents are forced out, creating “student ghettoes” that fail to meet the living standards of the former residents.
Under apartheid, non-white citizens were systematically denied access to higher education, along with many other rights (Lemon, Anthony (2009). "Overcoming the Apartheid Legacy in Cape Town Schools". Review.). The overturn of apartheid in 1994 meant an influx of students - in 2000, South Africa began to consolidate its many smaller colleges and technical schools into comprehensive universities as a response to growing demand.
Donaldson et al identify six main participants in studentification: students, educational institutions, local authorities, developers, homeowners, and permanent residents. Students are seen as more profitable tenants due to having fewer requirements than single families; likewise, students are among the most exploited in the housing market, as their transience and lack of experience leads to a lack of representation and equity in policy decisions.
Often, this leads to a high geographical concentration of students in campus-adjacent suburban areas; these areas become culturally homogenized to the extent that they function as an extension of the campus. Studentification is associated with the displacement of traditional restaurants and bars by chain restaurants, as well as environmental decay due to increased traffic, insufficient supply of services, crime, and “anti-social behavior [due] to high consumption of alcohol.” On the other hand, some argue that students should be seen as “cultural investors” that lead to diversification of available goods and services. The former problems serve as an incentive for existing property owners to move out, while the latter consumer behaviors invite outside investors. Due to the seasonal nature of student housing, it should be noted that only businesses that have sufficient capital to subsist on lower revenues during off-seasons are able to compete in this new market.
Finally, this leads to the spatial reconfiguration of urban zones: developers identify the shortage of student housing and lobby for single-family residential areas to be rezoned for high density housing. In Stellenbosch and Bloemfontein, zoning policy updates have been unable to keep pace with the rapid increase of student residents since 2000. Many zoning violations are therefore allowed to continue under the radar, contributing further to urban decline.
Though considering events that are quite separate in space and time, both of these articles identify common themes – the culture of a university often experiences friction with that of the local community (whether justified or not) and disagreements between these groups play out in policy, economy, and geography, particularly when it comes to the unique needs of a student population.
Each case is a different manifestation of an essential problem in urban planning: how can rapid growth be accommodated? Both authors offer the solution of multi-interest coalitions that includes government, the public, and the private sector. In Chicago, these sorts of coalitions made great strides, though only through serious trial and tribulation; whether the same can be achieved in South Africa remains to be seen. In Ann Arbor, we see similar partnerships between the University of Michigan, local government, student groups, and community groups. Not all results of these partnerships are viewed as positive; for example, the proliferation of 'luxury' off-campus student housing is seen as a gentrifying force in Ann Arbor's downtown area. On the other hand, the local economy is highly dependent on the University as an employer and provider of services, while the student population is likewise an important part of the local consumer economy.
Winling, L. (2011). Students and the Second Ghetto: Federal Legislation, Urban Politics, and Campus Planning at the University of Chicago. Journal of Planning History, 59-86.
Donaldson, R., Benn, J., Campbell, M., & de Jager, A. (2014). Reshaping urban space through studentification in two south african urban centres. Urbani Izziv, 25, S176-S188. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1620719246?accountid=14667
When thinking about the relationship between a university campus and a city, sustainability comes to mind. Sustainable development, in this case, is understood as a pattern of resource usage that aims to meet human needs while preserving the built and natural environment (Cerkez). However, we must think of the university sustainability through its architecture, first. Architecture has a power that shows potential through ideology, finances, culture, history, etc., in an aspect of life. When dealing with the built environment, urban spatial analysis allows the exploration of the sequence changes in the organization of space. This means that the planner has obtained knowledge of the environment in which they will design. This is the product of subjective projection and introjections that opposes the idea of space as a constant “container” of things and bodies (Cerkez). When they have an environment which has the capacity to attract views from individuals, they can show movement, displacement, differences and certain detailing of the city.Places and objects define space and give space “personality” (Cerkez). When a place has precise definition and meaning, it has become space. In psychological aspects, space perceptions are related to the perception of cultural characteristics of the environment. The forms that we perceive are the unique ones that particular social context allows, therefore, society also has an impact on the environment in which we live. The architect creates the image of culture, the reflection of characteristics of functional rhythmic patterns, which define and constitute a culture (Cerkez). Lastly, architects intuitively seek cultural rhythm to find symbolic form. This creates a world that is naturally complementary of an individual. A personal level would be their homes and the social level is expressed by their environment.
Traditionally, sustainable development has been connected with the environment, ecology and economy (Cerkez); whether or not recycle, if we pollute, or if their is enough money to start ‘green’ projects. Sustainability means place making and participation. It is the relation to nature and the environment in a state of change because of urbanism and new livelihoods in rural areas, and because of a new awareness of ecological and environmental issues (Cerkez). However, there is also a connection with strong social and cultural dimensions. This is where we as mankind in a specific culture play out our roles in the environment. In a university setting, a grand population has the ability to make an impact on the society in relation to sustainability. As a city in microcosm, a university is able to test new ideas in areas ranging from transportation to housing to waste (Stacey). A university that is part of a city in a huge way, i.e. The University of Michigan being an open campus in Downtown Ann Arbor, has the ability to influence the culture around it to become a more sustainable place. Campuses may approach sustainability issues from a number of perspectives, including land use, operations, and academics (Stacey). The University of Michigan has many dorms which houses the many students it inhabits. Only a handful of dorms have dining halls, which reduces the amount of efficiency in electricity and waste in food, both better for the environment. It also has city and university buses that provide transportation to each campus, North, South, and Central campus, as well as allowing students to go to recreational places around the city without the hassle of each student having a car and wasting gas energy and polluting the earth. With the University having so much power and recognition, it could essentially be easy for a better sustainability plan to take actions for the campus and the city of Ann Arbor. Campus and community planners alike use plans as the primary tool for envisioning the future and determining a path toward that vision (Stacey).
Stacey, S. W. (2014). Campus sustainability plans in the united states: Where, what, and how to evaluate? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(2), 228-241. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1508308741?accountid=14667
Cerkez, B. G. T. (2013). Visual art education: Between spatial sustainable development and the image of architecture. CEPS Journal : Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(1), 79-96. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1346762430?accountid=14667
College enrollment grew rapidly after World War II and the G.I. bill, and so, colleges had to construct buildings to meet their new sizes. Modernism had also taken over architecture at the time, so when the Universities sollicited buildings from the most significant artists of the day, they were given modern buildings. In turn, college campuses house some of the most significant modern architecture. Walter Groupius built Harkness Commons at Harvard, Mies van der Rohe developed the plan for Illinois Institute of Technology, and Eero Saarinen made the master plan for our own North Campus (Buono).
These campus buildings influenced the way people used the campuses. As Buono writes, "the grid applied equally to both the arrangement of building interiors and the open space in order to promote a unique aesthetic continuity within the campus." The openess of modern design fosters the collaborative environnment that collages strive for. Universities stand for sharing knowlege and ideas, and nothing enables that more than open spaces.
Buono concludes with the point that the modern buildings on campus are significant landmarks of modern architecture, and so they need to be preserved. Some of these buildings have recieved recognition as historical sites, but many have not, and the unprotected buildings are in danger of being replaced. On our own campus, the University closed the Baits I dorm because it had become obsolete, and while that building isn't of particular architectural significance, there are other buildings from the same era that are. In an effort to stay current and show off fancy new facilities, Universities could lose significant works of modern architecture.
An alternative to replacing architecturally significant buildings is to keep them and build new ones close by, as Roosevelt University in Chicago did when it expanded its facilities in 2012 to accommodate increasing enrollment. Rather than moving out of its existing campus in the Auditorium building, designed by Louis Sullivan, the University built a new high rise that incorporated all of the needs of the University, organized by level. This allowed the University to preserve, "the city infrastructure of utilities and public access." (Vertical Campus) The University's location was central to its identity, so it was crucial to build up the existing campus.
The building was designed to verticalize a campus, which is traditionally horizontal, so the designers made a point to create the open spaces of a campus. They did this by creating, "a series of vertically connected neighbourhoods were created through atrium and social space on each floor." (Vertical Campus) While keeping within the limitations of a city building, where land is at a premium, the designers kept the feel of a traditional campus. Campuses need these open spaces because they work to create collaborative open learning communities, and the spaces enable this culture, so a college building with out that design wouldn't feel like a college building.
Buono, J. (2011). Modern architecture and the U.S. campus heritage movement: improvements in attitudes are noticeable, but Modernist campus heritage is still threatened. Planning for Higher Education, 39(3), 88+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA299639651&v=2.1&u=lom_umichanna&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=9aacd97b7d901ed5e4c981c68bbcf015
Vertical campus. (2012). Architecture + Design, 29(9), 102-106,108. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1115594532?accountid=14667
