Uptown Report Executive Summary Romanos et al 2006_McGirr

UC/Community Interactions and Collaborations A Study of Peer Institutions Executive Summary A research project funded by the University of Cincinnati Office of the President By Michael Romanos, PhD, AICP Professor of Planning and Economic Development David Edelman, PhD, AICP Director and Professor of Planning Mahyar Arefi, PhD Associate Professor of Planning and Urban Design University of Cincinnati School of Planning November 2006 Executive Summary University of Cincinnati redevelopment initiatives in the Uptown area For the last ten years, the University of Cincinnati has been shifting its focus from a purely institutional-centric point of view to a perspective that more and more takes into account its surrounding community context The impetus that inspired this transition was, on the one hand, declining student attendance rates, a deteriorating urban environment around the campus, declines in safety conditions in the proximity of the university and low faculty/staff interest in living near the campus; and on the other hand the realization that improving the quality of life in and for the communities neighboring the university was part of the social obligations of the university as a good citizen and a good neighbor, while improved environmental, design and safety conditions in the area of the campus would enhance the local and national image of the university and would make the institution more appealing to excellent faculty and high quality students Since then, the University has embarked in a sincere dialogue with the surrounding neighborhoods and their councils, out of which a number of physical improvement decisions were initiated for the benefit of these communities, and has been instrumental in establishing the Uptown Consortium, a partnership among the largest institutions in the Uptown area – the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Children’s’ Hospital Medical Center, the Health Alliance, and TriHealth Inc, in addition to the University of Cincinnati which has subsequently been responsible for a series of redevelopment and rehabilitation initiatives, the impact of which is expected to be broad and long-lasting Purpose and focus of the study As the Consortium is now moving into the second and major phase of its redevelopment activities in the Uptown region, the present study was commissioned by the University of Cincinnati with the dual objective of (a) outlining and documenting the development partnerships, initiatives and investments of the University of Cincinnati within its surrounding communities and the conceptual model of the intervention followed in the process, and (b) studying, assessing and comparing the University of Cincinnati model to those of a number of select US and some Canadian – academic institutions and drawing some lessons that could be used by the University as it reassesses its local development initiatives in the future To accomplish these objectives, two parallel studies were undertaken by this research project team: The first study was an examination of the University of Cincinnati model of community collaborations, partnerships, interventions and investments The second study surveyed twenty one US – and some Canadian academic institutions located within major urban/metropolitan areas and recognized as significantly involved with their communities in various programs of community enhancement, rehabilitation or redevelopment The universities, and their major community partnerships initiatives, are: University of Akron: University Park Alliance Boston College University Partnerships Duke University: the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership Georgia Tech University: Blueprint Midtown Johns Hopkins University: East Baltimore Biotech Research Park Louisiana State University: The LSU Community University Partnership McGill University Community Partnerships Ohio State University: Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment San Diego State University: College Community Redevelopment Project Simon Fraser University Community Partnerships University of Pennsylvania: West Philadelphia Initiatives University of Pittsburg: Community Partnerships University of Victoria Community Partnerships University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Community Partnerships University of British Columbia Community Partnerships University of California at Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Community Partnerships University of California, San Diego: Community Development Initiatives University of Illinois at Chicago: UIC Neighborhoods Initiative University of Louisville: Signature Partnership Initiative and SUN University of Southern California: USC Civic and Community Relations The case studies of these universities are presented in summary form and are discussed in chapters and 10 of the Main Report, and are compared to the University of Cincinnati initiatives and model in chapter 11 of the same document The detailed case studies are contained in Appendices to 21 The Uptown area and its characteristics Uptown is one of the major economic engines of the city It houses five of the top ten largest employers in the tri-state region: the University of Cincinnati, the Health Alliance, Children’s Hospital, the TriHealth and the Cincinnati Public Schools The direct economic impact of the Uptown area is only second to downtown Seven neighborhoods constitute the Uptown area: Avondale, Clifton, Clifton Heights, Fairview, Corryville, Mt Auburn and University Heights These neighborhoods are primarily residential but have changed over time They were once home to wealthy professionals who moved to the suburbs in the suburbanization wave of the 1960s-1980s and were occupied by middle and low income households who moved from the downtown by choice or were displaced residents of the I-75 construction of the West End neighborhoods Part of their housing, which originally was mostly single-family units, was gradually subdivided and transformed into multi-family residences Demographic characteristics, housing conditions, income levels, racial makeup and other social factors today make each of these neighborhoods unique Suburbanization, construction of I-75 and other factors contributed to sweeping changes in the demographic characteristics of the city, and reached a racial tipping point with the violent racial riots of the 1960s Since then, safety in the Uptown area has declined steadily, as has the condition of its housing On account of these two problems, by the 1990s there was a perception that the Uptown area was not as desirable a community as it had been in the past and that, as a consequence, the University of Cincinnati was not as desirable an institution as it should be The University of Cincinnati initiatives The University of Cincinnati initiated its involvement in the revitalization of its surrounding neighborhoods by forming community development corporations (CDCs) in the Uptown area It invested considerable effort in confidence building among these neighborhoods, and focused on large-scale projects that could combine urban design and economic development Initiatives taken by the University include improving the technological and physical infrastructure of the campus, preparing a master plan of the campus within the context of the surrounding neighborhoods, improving the immediate surroundings of the university, embarking on social infrastructure projects such as the Corryville Community Center, pursuing on-campus and off-campus rehabilitation projects, etc The formation of the Uptown Consortium, an umbrella organization consisting of the five major employers listed above and serving as a sponsor of the individual community development corporations, gave direction to these efforts Consortium organizational structure, decision-making and agenda The Uptown Consortium was formally created in the early summer of 2003 to direct the investment of its members in the Uptown region To achieve this objective, it has lobbied for, and has leveraged additional local, state, and federal public resources, grants, credits, as well as private financing commitments Its policies are based upon two core principles: (a) active community involvement in the planning of economic development processes, and (b) allocation of resources to spur both supply and demand in the Uptown area The Consortium was established as a public-private organization with a simple structure Headed by a CEO, the organization is led by a policy-making committee composed of the presidents and chief executive officers of the five partners The policy-making committee is chaired by the University of Cincinnati (as the dominant economic force in the area and principle source of funds) with equal representation from each of the participants At the second tier, a set of high-ranking individuals from the partner organizations contributes thoughts and ideas toward policy making A “third tier” of professional staff is directly employed by the Consortium to coordinate and promote Consortium activities This group is also charged with implementing policies and programs formulated by the first and second tiers, while at the same time providing inputs into the policy-setting process The Consortium communicates regularly with the leadership of each of its members and enjoys easy access to skilled professionals internal to each organization for consultation and collaboration on setting policy and implementing programs The Consortium’s general objectives are divided into several categories: public safety, transportation, housing, economic development, and general neighborhood services for local residents The goals are translated into programs that seek to improve the quality of life for area residents by addressing the specific problems of the area: low homeownership rates, impacted transportation, declining commercial zones, the perception of poor safety, and the lack of regional identity Programs and studies undertaken to date include The Neighborhood Investment Program, The Uptown Mortgage Fund (originally Walk to Work program), The Uptown Transportation Study, The Public Safety Initiative and The Wireless Cloud Network Special attention was given to communications, both internally and externally Summits, design seminars, public meetings, committee meetings and other events have been used as means of communication The Uptown Cincinnati Strategic Opportunity Plan, prepared by the Consortium in December 2004, has brought together under one strategic plan all the diverse elements of these efforts This Uptown redevelopment plan has taken three main issues under consideration: (a) Access and Connectivity, (b) Permeability and (c) Expansion into the Surrounding Areas To achieve these three targets, the plan aims to develop nearly 400,000 sq ft of retail space, containing 150,000 sq ft of new retail space, 100,000 sq ft of rehabilitated retail space and 100,000 sq ft of small business and business incubator space Five significant redevelopment projects worth $1.2 billion have been undertaken in the Uptown area (See Table 1) Real estate development, housing and commercial markets The majority of the Uptown Consortium initiated or supported redevelopment activities in the Uptown area are real estate oriented, and thus have to compete with the larger real estate market area of Greater Cincinnati But new demand for real estate currently occurs mostly in suburban areas of the region Hence the Uptown projects have to provide a niche that will make them successful in their competition as a potential residential and commercial investment destination The housing stock in the Uptown area, before redevelopment, comprised of 26,138 units of different types, generally small and predominantly multi-family This stock has been old and investment in its upkeep has been low Owner-occupied units comprise 23 percent of the homes in Uptown, 15% below that rate for the City of Cincinnati The rental units are predominantly occupied by students and employees of the five major employers Mean home prices range widely among neighborhoods, with the highest found in Clifton ($202,000) and the lowest in Corryville ($62,000) Monthly rentals range from $375 to $525 for a one-bedroom apartment and from about $525 to $750 for a two-bedroom apartment and their distribution among neighborhoods is similar, with the highest rentals found in Clifton and the lowest found in Corryville The 2006 median family income of Uptown residents was $27,532 (CPI adjusted figure) indicating that a large number of local households could not afford quality housing Newer housing units in the Uptown area are mostly market rate and not address the prevailing Uptown demographic and economic characteristics described above Hence they are beyond the purchasing power of most local residents The expected population likely to invest in the planned Uptown Consortium developments would be combination of empty nesters, young couples, single professionals and employees of the Uptown’s institutions, including UC faculty and staff members Commercial retail space in Uptown largely serves local needs It includes fast food, bars and nightclubs, apparel shops, specialty retail, café/pastry/ice cream parlors, casual dining, restaurants, groceries, bookstores and music stores Commercial spaces are concentrated in six locations: Ludlow Avenue in Clifton, Burnet Avenue in Avondale, Calhoun/McMillan Avenues in Clifton Heights and Jefferson Avenue, Short Vine and Table 1: Redevelopment projects in the Uptown Area Redevelopment Project The Burnet Avenue Renewal Plan The Calhoun Street Marketplace Key Partners/ Developers • • • • • • • The Stratford Heights Complex • • • • The Uptown Crossing • • • • • The University Village • • • • • • Avondale Community Council Cincinnati Children’s Hospital The Health Alliance Cincinnati Zoo/Botanical Gardens Local business community The Clifton Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation (CHCURC) The Clifton Heights Business Association University of Cincinnati Univ Heights Com Council The Greek Affairs Council Univ Heights Com Urban Redevelopment Corporation (CHCURC) University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Zoo/Botanical Gardens TriHealth The Health Alliance The communities of Clifton, Corryville and Avondale The City of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati The Corryville Com Council The Univ Village Association The Corryville Community Development Corporation Corryville residents Salient Features of the Project • • • 450 housing units 20 infill housing units Retail, and open space Budget $20 million Completion Date November 20, 2017 Already completed • 505 bed student housing • 40,000 sq ft N Calhoun retail To be undertaken • 200 bed student housing • 45 apartment/condo housing • 55,000 sq ft S Calhoun retail • 700 bed high quality student housing $125 million End of 2007 $50 million Completed August 2005 • • • • • 200,000 sq ft of office space 30,000 sq ft of retail 20,000 sq ft of administrative space 10,000 sq ft of daycare 250 - 280 housing units $100 million Not yet specified • • • • • 500 bed student housing complex Improving safety Increasing pedestrian traffic Encourage business growth Creation of stronger connections $60 million Not yet specified University Plaza in Corryville The neighborhoods of Mt Auburn and Fairview Heights not have concentrated retail areas Present commercial space in Uptown stands at 443,000 sq ft, down from 533,000 sq ft in the past Average occupancy of existing retail spaces was 91 % in 2004 but declined to 84% by 2006, a full 5.4 percentage-points below that of the Greater Cincinnati region Commercial rental prices in the Uptown area are comparatively low In the current economic environment, it is not profitable for upscale retailers to locate in Uptown The existing retail areas in Uptown have smaller trade areas than many other retail business districts in Greater Cincinnati Future planned retail developments in Uptown would have to be supported by not only the existing Uptown residents but also from the residents of nearby communities attracted to the new retail merchandising opportunities, as well as by the new homeowners and renters of the planned new housing stock The planned new residential developments and improved neighborhoods have a number of characteristics that are expected to make them attractive to new buyers and renters, including (a) the mixed residential and retail development, (b) the availability of a larger “captive customer” base, (c) quality construction, (d) flexible design, and (e) potentially safe pedestrian shopping areas and high quality streetscapes that will make commercial spaces attractive to new businesses Typically, large scale real estate developments have significant “externality” effects on their surroundings, by instigating further private sector developments, increasing the value of real estate, crating more demand for new developments, and improving the quality of life in their area For example, the “clustering effect”, under which similar businesses agglomerate in order to benefit from each other, would also increase the real estate value of the Uptown region Such developments can also trigger “spill-over” effects on their broader regions, by making the region more attractive to investors and residents, and by helping the region to compete more effectively with suburban developments Impacts of interventions on the broader urban system The economic impact of the five major employers is given in Table Table 2: Economic impact of the five major employers in the Uptown area Employer Children's Hospital and Medical Center TriHealth Inc Health Alliance University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens Total Economic Impact (Direct and Indirect) $3.59 billion $1.15 billion1 $ 657 million1 $4.00 billion $ 90 million Estimated figures based on Premier Health Partners (2005) figures because of similar size and nature of operations The annual economic impact of household spending by students and employees in Uptown is estimated at $185 million on existing housing and $334.4 million on existing retail Since the development activities of the Uptown Consortium are on-going and as yet incomplete, any assessment of their effectiveness and impacts would be premature What we know is that the Uptown Consortium has planned an investment of over $500 million in the Uptown area, and that the economic impact of its construction-related activities alone is estimated at about billion The post-construction economic impact of the new retail spaces and homes in Uptown is estimated in two different scenarios, optimistic and pessimistic The optimistic scenario annual economic impacts are estimated at $155 million in retail sales The Uptown Consortium neighborhood services initiative could be quantified in terms of local job opportunities for communities generated because of better access to education and skills Increased safety will attract people to live and buy in the Uptown area, and thus creating demand for real estate and an increase in property values The housing market would also be positively affected The increase in demand for housing will give rise to increased housing values and rents, which in turn will increase investments in the new and existing housing stock The clustering of mixed use activities, if successful, will make Uptown a major retail destination offering a variety options There will be increased trade because of the increased customer base (new residents), which will improve business potential and thus sales volume, leading to an increase in revenue, increased demand for retail space and hence higher rents This will also lead to increased spending on retail and increase in employment opportunities for the local communities The economic impacts on existing businesses will be mixed, with some retailers gaining business, while some others would be losing out However the new competition will induce higher productivity, efficiency and higher returns to the existing retail owners The expected increased customer base will increase business potential for both the existing retailers and the new merchants All of this taken together will contribute positively to the economy The pessimistic scenario impacts are not monetarized but are estimated in terms of the negative implications of the development if it fails to takeoff as desired, which are: exacerbation of blight, negative impact of vacant properties on the rest of the real estate, and declines in rents and other returns The overall aim of the Uptown Consortium is not only to improve socio-economic conditions in the Uptown but also in its surrounding areas It is important that the effect of the Consortium’s redevelopment extends to its broader region However, if businesses move from downtown to Uptown it would be a zero sum game for the larger region Thus, the focus should be on attracting new businesses as well as residential options Community Development The central idea of community development is to improve local economic and social conditions through collective action This is one of the overarching goals of universitycommunity partnerships But often these partnerships can be subject to misinterpretation and confusion because of the lack of clarity of purpose and possible ambiguities associated with the partners’ roles, relationships, and expectations This is also the case of the University of Cincinnati, which has partnered with local communities in the Uptown development efforts but has had mixed responses from them on redevelopment projects One of the visible issues that have stood on the way of the partnership is the gap between housing supply and housing affordability Some believe that the planned additions to the housing stock would potentially lure many new residents to the Uptown area, while others fear that the new, more upscale housing market might inadvertently result in the displacement of a portion of the local population who has been long-term resident of the Uptown neighborhoods A second community development issue confronting UC in its community partnerships is the intent with which each of these partnerships is formed and the mechanisms through which the goals of the partnership are expected to materialize For example, current partnerships have been successful in community development, but community organizing and capacity building have been lacking behind To address this issue, the emphasis of the UC community partnerships is gradually shifting from building more housing to helping local residents in fostering a sense of safety, and with engagement in property management Involving the local residents in the decision-making process and policy formulation aimed at restoring the communities’ self-confidence and self-reliance is also being emphasized more, and more responsibilities are being relegated to local residents Social participation by respecting and celebrating diversity is being encouraged However, community building takes time and requires attention and constant open dialog among all parties involved A third community development concern is the potential overstock of retail and new businesses in the Uptown area, wherein absorption rates would not be meeting expectations In this context, the expectations of the partnership itself are being questioned by the neighborhoods, as is the decision-making process being followed by the university Past experiences in which the University, as the large investor of the area, made decisions not necessarily promoting the neighborhoods’ interests and priorities, continue to create suspicions and undermine the success of the partnerships initiated by the University and the Consortium A fourth issue has to with diversification of Consortium involvement in capacitybuilding activities other than housing and real estate, such as job formation, supporting business start-ups, self-help, and community policing, activities aimed at improving the general conditions of the neighborhoods and the quality of life of their residents For now, the Consortium is focusing on carrying out physical improvements prior to building human capacity and social capital Particular attention is being paid to identifying and capitalizing on local social assets and leadership which could enhance people’s participation in making local decisions Concomitant with university involvement in local community development efforts is recognizing that these areas of local concern help raise awareness and promote understanding between the University and its partner communities Safety, design for safety and defensive space One of the greatest challenges facing the redevelopment efforts in the Uptown area is the issue of safety The Uptown struggles with clusters of crime and this was exacerbated by the racial riots of 2001 There is an ever escalating tension between a police force composed primarily of white officers and African-American residents in the Uptown neighborhoods There are issues like lack of adequate officers on streets, the shift of crime to Uptown because of more active policing of Over-the-Rhine, the split of the Uptown area between two city and several institutional police jurisdictions, poor communication among the districts, and under-funding Petty crimes in the Uptown area have increased, especially among African-American juveniles A holistic strategy to address safety issues must be the precursor to all other efforts of the Uptown Consortium Safety needs to be addressed for the local businesses to flourish and to retain the admissions at University of Cincinnati since many of the students live off campus in the surrounding neighborhoods Since the creation of the Uptown Consortium, there have been many discussions about what needs to be done to improve the perception of safety One of the alternatives sought is community policing for which a sense of collective ownership of public spaces is very critical Another aspect is the concept of defensible space and understanding the criteria on which criminals make decisions A third is property ownership, which is associated with a long term investment in the neighborhood, and more personal interest in the quality of life there The higher the ownership, the more is the sense of community identity and the less is the chance of crime in the neighborhood A forth is the community’s use of public space and people presence Clifton is perceived to be the safest neighborhood in the Uptown area because of the heavy pedestrian and automobile traffic along Ludlow Avenue A fifth is the willingness and ability of community residents to take ownership of their neighborhood to make it safe This is now considered a determining factor for the reduction of crime and the effectiveness of community policing Unless the residents understand this responsibility, there is not much the police can to protect them This leads to the sixth issue, that of building social and physical capital, since dense local social networks make it increasingly difficult and risky for potential offenders to threaten public safety Community policing is one way to build trust among the University, the local residents, and businesses, but it is not free of problems Community policing is a “vague” concept, especially in communities with a transient nature, in which the temporary stay of community residents prevents social capital to accumulate at the local level and hence, community policing is not completely effective There are linkages between the propensity to commit crime and the physical deterioration of a neighborhood Community assets and community participation can thus be far more effective than increasing police presence in communities Good defensive design, coupled with other measures such as community education, is critical for reduction in crime apart from police presence Problem-oriented policing is another technique that works best when government and local institutions such as colleges are involved in the community The institutional partners of the Uptown Consortium can play a powerful role in the Uptown area’s safety, both jointly and individually The University of Cincinnati has many and diverse resources to offer, which include incentives, research facilities, and a private security force The Consortium partners are contributing to the endeavor through initiatives such as the installation of cameras on Burnet Avenue by the Zoo, identification of hotspots of crime, and focus on acquiring crime-infested buildings/spaces to renovate or demolish Alternatives such as employing uniformed unarmed security guards who would work in tandem with the local police by entering into mutual aid contracts are also being considered At the same time, there are measures that the University and the Uptown Consortium must be careful not to take, including cuts in the safety budget, creating developments that are isolated islands of security but are not integrated with the rest of the neighborhood, trying to stretch meager resources over too large an area and thereby diluting them, and utilizing one type of resource when another would be a better fit Developers play an important role in the reduction of crime by creating defensible spaces and other neighborhood-based improvements that would significantly increase the risk for offenders to commit crime For example, Clifton Heights applied for a “safe and clean” grant from the city and received $13,000 matched by UC for lighting on building faỗades and private lighting in public areas This has enhanced the appearance of the area and has contributed to deterring crime Housing design, land use and circulation patterns, eliminating visual obstacles to detect criminals, using territorial features, and controlling physical deterioration are other physical approaches to neighborhood safety that developers are implementing in new projects The Consortium can play an important role in pressurizing City Hall to address two key issues: (a) the creation of one unified police district responsible for the Uptown area Covering the area through two police districts is an ineffective way of dealing with the increasing incidence of crime in the area, due mostly to time lags in coordination, response, and the allocation of personnel (b) Improvement in the street, public spaces and building lighting conditions of the Uptown neighborhoods Funding Strategies and Financial Instruments Used Financing the developments planned by the Consortium in the Uptown area is perhaps the most critical factor for the success of the overall operation The overall budget of the Uptown Consortium consists of two parts: (a) expenditures for routine operations like advertising, the holding of public meetings and the cost of administrative staff responsible for policy and program implementation and (b) development funds to undertake the redevelopment projects To raise the necessary funds, the Consortium partners have committed a substantial amount of their own money in the form of low interest loans The UC contribution currently constitutes the “lion’s share” of underlying investments in the Uptown area, but further investments are expected by the other Consortium members in the future The Consortium is using the funds contributed by its members as leverage to attract investors to provide cash equity into the fund pool for the Uptown redevelopment 10 program To date, such funds have come from a group of five local and national bank lenders (PNC, 5th/3rd, US Bank, National City Bank, and JP Morgan/Chase) and from equity investors in two ways: as regular commercial bank loans and as New Market Tax Credits In addition to those financial instruments already used, there are other means of support that are being considered, including Community Reinvestment Act loans; Tax Increment Financing; Special Improvement District designations; New Market Tax Credits; Enterprise Zone programs; Job Creation Tax Credits; Small Business Administration 504 Loans; Small Business Administration Micro Loan programs; Ohio 166 Regional Loans; Community Development Block Grants; Clean Ohio funds; TEA21 transportation funding; Local Transportation Improvement funds; and Nature Works grants With reasonable success in the first phase of development consisting of a large multilevel garage, student housing, and retail space, future investments into these kinds of developments are assured However, the slow pace of leasing the retail space is sending a negative message and will make it harder for the Consortium to secure advantageous terms for the commercial loans that will finance the next phase of the uptown development project The funds of the New Markets Tax Credits authorization are being managed by the Cincinnati Development Fund (CDF) The governance structure of the fund provides agreements that protect each of the investors These agreements largely govern how the organization will proceed, and how the money will be utilized There are meticulous procedures laid out for project financing For all projects costing over a million there is a three-tier committee review process The first review is carried out by the Uptown Consortium Board, followed by the Cincinnati Development Fund and then the Investment Committee, which is made up of representatives of the five lender banks Each of these tiers has a predefined role and responsibilities along with power to veto fund allocations Funding usually flows into a development project in two ways First, a line of credit is extended to the development organization to be used directly for development Second, bridge loans are issued on a need-based approach If the investments in the redevelopment projects are successful, it will be a win-win situation for all participants: Lender institutions are assured of fair return on investments and have no or little economic risk; The Community Development Corporations have cash available to them for the implementation of the development and redevelopment programs at lower than market costs, and thus are able to address low income community problems; while success of projects will ensure future funding opportunities for the Uptown Consortium However, certain needs must be addressed for the success of the future investments and to ensure the bankability of the projects They are: (a) undertaking a real estate market study, (b) developing a real estate development master plan, (c) securing the best possible financial deals for the projects, (d) structuring a package deal with all ingredients for developing social capital rather than just buildings, (e) creating a positive image of the initiative in the minds of present and future investors, and (f) avoiding the perception of failure 11 The case studies Even though the initiatives of the Uptown Consortium are significant for Cincinnati and its Uptown region, it is not clear whether they are truly unique for North America, and represent an exceptional amount of effort and university commitment, or are just one of hundreds of similar efforts around the country Given that in the last twenty years most urban universities have recognized the practical benefits of more active involvement with their communities and have become more actively involved with their neighborhoods and cities, an examination of the relative scale, nature, approach and results of the University of Cincinnati and its Uptown partners in comparison to other major academic institutions can provide valuable insights to the University and Consortium officials as they readjust their strategies and priorities for the long term development of the Uptown communities The study of the US and Canadian university partnerships revealed that universities are involved in a wide variety of initiatives in their communities, which could be classified under the following four categories: • Generation of Knowledge: Research, data collection, experimentation – purely for the generation of knowledge, no attempt to improve community quality of life; • Collaborative Studies: Studies with the collaboration and/or participation of the community – fundamentally for educational and/or research purposes, but with derived benefits to the community; • Community Involvement: Activities specifically designed to benefit the community, carried out by faculty and student volunteers and with the active participation of the community, or • Area Redevelopment: Direct interventions of the university into the community for real estate rehabilitation, redevelopment, campus expansion or community enhancement This simple classification was adopted as a useful framework for the assessment and comparison of the activities identified and reviewed through the case study universities Thus, the wide range of options available to academic institutions in the establishment of community development partnerships were grouped into these four categories and the groupings were used to point out the magnitudes and degrees of emphasis given to these activities by the institutions To illustrate that analysis, a hierarchy of categories of community interventions was devised, as shown in Figure below The hierarchical graph was used to classify the most significant outreach activities of each institution studied To identify the relative importance of each category of outreach activity for each institution, a five-symbol approach was adopted In it: • an X symbol indicates no significant institutional outreach activity of the university, while an arrow symbol indicates the presence of measurable activity Arrows come in four colors and sizes: • a small blue arrow indicates very little, but measurable activity, • a larger green arrow indicates moderate levels of activity, 12 Figure 3: Classification of university outreach activities Models of the University-Community Involvement and Outreach Initiatives GENERATION OF KNOWLEDGE COLLABORATIVE STUDIES COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AREA REDEVELOPMENT Research, data collection, experimentation – purely for the generation of knowledge, no attempt to improve community quality of life Studies with the collaboration and/or participation of the community – fundamentally for educational and/or research purposes, but with derived benefits to the community Activities specifically designed to benefit the community, carried out by faculty and student volunteers and with the active participation of the community Direct interventions of the university into the community for real estate rehabilitation, redevelopment, campus expansion or community enhancement • • an even larger yellow arrow indicates major activity, while the largest red arrow identifies significant activity area(s) where the university has put most of its outreach and community partnerships emphasis The characterization of these symbols becomes clearer by viewing Figure This system of analysis was employed to group and assess the activities of a select number of the institutions studied This approach has the advantage of providing visual information, easily understood and easily comparable to similar information for other institutions It also has the flexibility to be adjusted if the reviewer prefers to use different criteria weights to make the assessment For example, if the emphasis of an institution is measured by the number of its projects, its ranking would be different than if the measures used were the amount of funding expanded, the number of faculty and students involved, or the degree of involvement by partners like neighborhood constituencies To illustrate the application of this assessment tool, an example is given below (see Figure 5) of the analysis of the University of Pennsylvania partnership and community redevelopment activities 13 Figure 4: Explanation of symbols used Explanation of symbols NO ACTIVITY VERY LITTLE ACTIVITY MODERATE ACTIVITY HEAVY ACTIVITY VERY HEAVY ACTIVITY Comparisons between the University of Cincinnati and its Peer Institutions The review of the institutions studied in comparison with each other provides insights into their different preferences and orientations regarding community outreach and partnership activities It also provides a framework to assess how these institutions compare with the University of Cincinnati and its Uptown Consortium partners in terms of community development and outreach activities These comparisons were made by designing a spectrum for each of sixteen variables used in the comparison This spectrum can be read as follows: • At the left of the spectrum is the value: “minimal or no representation of the institution in this variable”, meaning that the institution has not been characterized by any significant, notable activity with regard to this variable • At the other end of the spectrum is the value: “significant, major representation of the institution in this variable”, meaning that with respect to this criterion the institution in question has had a remarkable record of involvement and excellence in its results regarding this variable 14 Figure 5: University of Pennsylvania, West Philadelphia Initiatives Models of the University-Community Involvement and Outreach Initiatives University of Pennsylvania West Philadelphia Initiatives GENERATION OF KNOWLEDGE COLLABORATIVE STUDIES •Penn-Alexander School: university-assisted public school, funded by the Initiatives COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AREA REDEVELOPMENT •W Philadelphia Partnership: many services and educational programs •University City District: crime prevention •Small business mentoring •W Philadelphia Partnership: improve community appearance and safety •University Square: 300,000 sq ft of retail and hotels •Neighborhood Housing Preservation and Development Fund: over 200 high quality, affordable residential units thus far •From 1999-2005, the university has procured over $262 million in goods and services from local businesses Within the spectrum, then, the further to the left an institution is placed, the less its involvement with this particular activity is judged to have been Inversely, the more to the right of the spectrum its placement, the more active the institution is with regard to this criterion The sixteen criteria used in this assessment include: • Presidential leadership • University financial commitment • Donor financing of university community development activities • Employment of innovative financing mechanisms • Partnerships with other community institutions • Community participation in the planning, decision making and development process • Avoiding use of eminent domain • Focus on safety • Environment and sustainability • Community development targets, goals and effectiveness • Impact on economic development 15 • • • • • Impact on the broader metropolitan region Social capital development Historic preservation Urban design Increase in housing supply An example of the application of the spectrum for two of the sixteen criteria is shown as Figure below Figure 6: Illustration of “Presidential leadership” and “Financial commitment” criteria Partnership Attributes Synthesis As the previous analysis indicates, in its comparison to its peer institutions, the University of Cincinnati is faring exceptionally well in its community partnership redevelopment efforts in a number of areas, is in an average position and can improve its standing in some others, and is behind its peers in a few To summarize the University of Cincinnati model, then, Figure is composed, which is a cumulative image of all sixteen criteria presented and discussed above, combined into one graph In that graph, UC is shown to have scored exceptionally well in the criteria: • Presidential leadership, • University financial commitment, 16 • • • • Innovative financing, Partnerships with other institutions, Urban design, and Increase in housing The university fares quite well, but with room for improvement, which we hope that the Uptown Consortium will make an effort to reach, in the criteria: • • Avoid use of eminent domain (make every effort to avoid the use of eminent domain in the future), and Community development (Put emphasis on the development of all the assets of the neighborhoods involved in the redevelopment, not just on the real estate component of them) It fares less well, and can improve considerably with respect to the criteria: • Community participation, • Focus on safety, and • Impacts on the metro region It needs to work harder to improve its standing with regard to: • Environment and sustainability, and • Economic development Finally, it has fallen at the bottom of the spectrum vis-à-vis its peer institutions in the areas of: • Use of donors for financing of its development projects, • Social capital development, and • Historic preservation 17 Figure 7: Cumulative evaluation of the University of Cincinnati against the sixteen criteria of performance AREAS OF PARTICULAR STRENGTHS FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES 18 ... Commercial rental prices in the Uptown area are comparatively low In the current economic environment, it is not profitable for upscale retailers to locate in Uptown The existing retail areas in Uptown. .. major employers in the Uptown area Employer Children's Hospital and Medical Center TriHealth Inc Health Alliance University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens Total Economic Impact... issue, that of building social and physical capital, since dense local social networks make it increasingly difficult and risky for potential offenders to threaten public safety Community policing